Person:
Banzett, Robert

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Banzett

First Name

Robert

Name

Banzett, Robert
Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.a95fe3ef-6e29-47a5-bdad-ca50222e4194

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Prevalence and Predictive Value of Dyspnea Ratings in Hospitalized Patients: Pilot Studies
    (Public Library of Science, 2016) Stevens, Jennifer; Baker, Kathy; Howell, Michael D.; Banzett, Robert
    Background: Dyspnea (breathing discomfort) can be as powerfully aversive as pain, yet is not routinely assessed and documented in the clinical environment. Routine identification and documentation of dyspnea is the first step to improved symptom management and it may also identify patients at risk of negative clinical outcomes. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of dyspnea and of dyspnea-associated risk among hospitalized patients. Design: Two pilot prospective cohort studies. Setting: Single academic medical center. Patients Consecutive patients admitted to four inpatient units: cardiology, hematology/oncology, medicine, and bariatric surgery. Measurements In Study 1, nurses documented current and recent patient-reported dyspnea at the time of the Initial Patient Assessment in 581 inpatients. In Study 2, nurses documented current dyspnea at least once every nursing shift in 367 patients. We describe the prevalence of burdensome dyspnea, and compare it to pain. We also compared dyspnea ratings with a composite of adverse outcomes: 1) receipt of care from the hospital’s rapid response system, 2) transfer to the intensive care unit, or 3) death in hospital. We defined burdensome dyspnea as a rating of 4 or more on a 10-point scale. Results: Prevalence of burdensome current dyspnea upon admission (Study 1) was 13% (77 of 581, 95% CI 11%-16%). Prevalence of burdensome dyspnea at some time during the hospitalization (Study 2) was 16% (57 of 367, 95% CI 12%-20%). Dyspnea was associated with higher odds of a negative outcome. Conclusions: In two pilot studies, we identified a significant symptom burden of dyspnea in hospitalized patients. Patients reporting dyspnea may benefit from a more careful focus on symptom management and may represent a population at greater risk for negative outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Routine dyspnea assessment and documentation: Nurses’ experience yields wide acceptance
    (BioMed Central, 2017) Baker, Kathy M.; DeSanto-Madeya, Susan; Banzett, Robert
    Background: Dyspnea (breathing discomfort) is a common and distressing symptom. Routine assessment and documentation can improve management and relieve suffering. A major barrier to routine dyspnea documentation is the concern that it will have a deleterious effect on nursing workflow and that it will not be readily accepted by nurses. Nurses at our institution recently began to assess and document dyspnea on all medical-surgical patients upon admission and once per shift throughout their hospitalization. A year after dyspnea measurement was implemented we explored nurses’ approach to dyspnea assessment, their perception of patient response, and their perception of the utility and burden of dyspnea measurement. Methods: We obtained feedback from nurses using a three-part assessment of practice: 1) a series of recorded focus group interviews with nurses, 2) a time-motion observation of nurses performing routine dyspnea and pain assessment, and 3) a randomized, anonymous on-line survey based, in part, on issues raised in focus groups. Results: Ninety-four percent of the nurses surveyed reported administering the dyspnea assessment is “easy” or “very easy”. None of the nurses reported that assessing dyspnea negatively impacted workflow and many reported that it positively improved their practice by increasing their awareness. Our time-motion data showed dyspnea assessment and documentation takes well less than a minute. Nurses endorsed the importance of routine measurement and agreed that most patients were able to provide a meaningful rating of their dyspnea. Nurses found the patient report very useful, and used it in conjunction with observed signs to respond to changes in a patient’s condition. Conclusions: In this study, we have demonstrated that routine dyspnea assessment and documentation was widely accepted by the nurses at our institution. Our nurses fully incorporated routine dyspnea assessment and documentation into their practice and felt that it improved patient-centered care. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12912-016-0196-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile: an instrument for clinical and laboratory research
    (European Respiratory Society, 2015) Banzett, Robert; O'Donnell, C; Guilfoyle, Tegan E.; Parshall, Mark B.; Schwartzstein, Richard; Meek, Paula M.; Gracely, Richard H.; Lansing, Robert W.
    There is growing awareness that dyspnoea, like pain, is a multidimensional experience, but measurement instruments have not kept pace. The Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP) assesses overall breathing discomfort, sensory qualities, and emotional responses in laboratory and clinical settings. Here we provide the MDP, review published evidence regarding its measurement properties and discuss its use and interpretation. The MDP assesses dyspnoea during a specific time or a particular activity (focus period) and is designed to examine individual items that are theoretically aligned with separate mechanisms. In contrast, other multidimensional dyspnoea scales assess recalled recent dyspnoea over a period of days using aggregate scores. Previous psychophysical and psychometric studies using the MDP show that: 1) subjects exposed to different laboratory stimuli could discriminate between air hunger and work/effort sensation, and found air hunger more unpleasant; 2) the MDP immediate unpleasantness scale (A1) was convergent with common dyspnoea scales; 3) in emergency department patients, two domains were distinguished (immediate perception, emotional response); 4) test–retest reliability over hours was high; 5) the instrument responded to opioid treatment of experimental dyspnoea and to clinical improvement; 6) convergent validity with common instruments was good; and 7) items responded differently from one another as predicted for multiple dimensions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Dyspnea affective response: comparing COPD patients with healthy volunteers and laboratory model with activities of daily living
    (BioMed Central, 2013) O’Donnell, Carl R; Schwartzstein, Richard; Lansing, Robert; Guilfoyle, Tegan; Elkin, Daniel; Banzett, Robert
    Background: Laboratory-induced dyspnea (breathing discomfort) in healthy subjects is widely used to study perceptual mechanisms, yet the relationship between laboratory-induced dyspnea in healthy volunteers and spontaneous dyspnea in patients with chronic lung disease is not well established. We compared affective responses to dyspnea 1) in COPD patients vs. healthy volunteers (HV) undergoing the same laboratory stimulus; 2) in COPD during laboratory dyspnea vs. during activities of daily living (ADL). Methods: We induced moderate and high dyspnea levels in 13 COPD patients and 12 HV by increasing end-tidal CO2 (PETCO2) during restricted ventilation, evoking air hunger. We used the multidimensional dyspnea profile (MDP) to measure intensity of sensory qualities (e.g., air hunger (AH) and work/effort (W/E)) as well as immediate discomfort (A1) and secondary emotions (A2). Ten of the COPD subjects also completed the MDP outside the laboratory following dyspnea evoked by ADL. Results: COPD patients and HV reported similar levels of immediate discomfort relative to sensory intensity. COPD patients and HV reported anxiety and frustration during laboratory-induced dyspnea; variation among individuals far outweighed the small differences between subject groups. COPD patients reported similar intensities of sensory qualities, discomfort, and emotions during ADL vs. during moderate laboratory dyspnea. Patients with COPD described limiting ADL to avoid greater dyspnea. Conclusions: In this pilot study, we found no evidence that a history of COPD alters the affective response to laboratory-induced dyspnea, and no difference in affective response between dyspnea evoked by this laboratory model and dyspnea evoked by ADL.