As doctors will soon have to be ‘bare below the elbows’ in UK hospitals, including no wristwatches, an article in this week’s British Medical Journal (BMJ) warns that not allowing doctors to wear wristwatches could be potentially dangerous in a clinical setting.
James Henderson and Sarah McCracken point out that there is no evidence that wristwatches carry infections. In fact, little has been mentioned about the clinical benefits of the wristwatch.
Most UK hospital beds and examination couches are not near any visible clock. So the doctor is dependent on his/her wristwatch for measuring and keeping time.
Twenty health care professionals were asked to evaluate varying pulse and respiratory rates on a simulated patient. But they did not have the use of a second hand. The participants could take as long as they wanted in order to make their estimates.
They found that an estimate for a pulse rate of 83 was as low as 60 and as high as 120. A respiratory rate of 14 was estimated at 10 and as high as 28. This simple experiment demonstrated how impossible it is for a healthcare professional to tell normal from abnormal rates without having access to the second hand of a clock/watch. In fact, only one of the twenty participants gave a reading that would not have been potentially dangerous.
The authors say that this study emphasizes the importance for doctors to have visual access to a second hand when assessing a patient, especially in an emergency situation when no clock may be within sight.
If trusts insist on banning wristwatches they should make sure that each bed space has its own clock with its own second hand, the authors write.
“Letter: Clinical value of a wristwatch”
BMJ Volume 336, p 10
http://www.bmj.com
Written by – Christian Nordqvist