Stethoscopic investigations (part 2 of 3)

Is the “cool” or circumcervical placement of the stethoscope when not in use as efficacious as the traditional placement in terms of transfer time to the functional position? Professor William Hanley MD, FRCPC (then with the Divisions of Paediatric Medicine and of Clinical and Biochemical Genetics, Department of Paediatrics, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto) and professor Anthony Hanley (then of the Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, and the University of Toronto) investigated this question for the first time back in year 2000.

Two hundred professional stethoscope-wearing subjects (from both the ‘cool’ camp and of the ‘traditional’ persuasion) were monitored by stopwatch in order to measure the time required for effective deployment of their instruments. There were stark differences. “The cool group was much slower than the traditional group, despite their younger years. This wasted time could translate into a substantial financial burden on Canada’s health care system.” – say the authors.
The efficacy of stethoscope placement when not in use: traditional versus “cool”. is published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal 2000 December 12; 163(12): 1562–1563.

Coming soon : Stethoscopic investigations (part 3 of 3)

One Response to “Stethoscopic investigations (part 2 of 3)”

  1. wikkit Says:

    Followup question: how can a group ranging from 45–97 with a mean of 67.4 have a standard deviation of 62?

Leave a Reply