Estimation of Pediatric Weights by Emergency Department Personnel - Children Essay Example

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Need

essay sample on "Estimation of Pediatric Weights by Emergency Department Personnel"

? We will write a cheap essay sample on "Estimation of Pediatric Weights by Emergency Department Personnel" specifically for you for only $12 - Estimation of Pediatric Weights by Emergency Department Personnel introduction.90/page

More Children Essay Topics.

Background of the Study

      Accuracy and precision of estimation of Pediatric weights by emergency department personnel are primary to the accuracy and precision of medical responses in terms of medication dosages and collateral medical and laboratory test for children as patients from neonates to teenagers. This can not be overlooked considering the damage that wrong estimations may bring about.

      The weight of babies at birth diverge, from 2.7 to 3.8 kg which is actually 5-10% less its actual heaviness, as most is gone to water losses during delivery(Kozier et al, 2004).  This is normal as babies will fully regain such losses within a week after birth through normal feeding habits (Kozier et al, 2004).  The gain in weight however would be around 150 to 210 g per week for the next six months (Kozier et al, 2004).  On the 5th month, infants’ weight will double that of its weight at birth (Kozier et al, 2004).  And on the 12th month the original weight will triple given normal physical conditions and feeding habits (Kozier et al, 2004).

       At two years of age, a child may lose some of its infantile characteristic physical phenotypic appearance (Kozier et al, 2004).  This is because the toddlers’ body weight is normally expected to quadruple as that of the birth weight (Kozier et. al, 2004).  Normally the gain in weight would be approximately 2 kg or 5 lbs (Kozier et al, 2004).

       At pre-school age up to about 5 years old, weight gain of a developing child would be slower.  This would be around 3 to 5 kg or 7 to 12 lbs, and subsequent increases would be gradual as age increases, by about 18 to 20 kg or 40 to 50 lbs (Kozier et al, 2004).

       At school age, children tend to gain weight at a faster rate normally, which would be around 21 kg or 46 lbs in males, around 1 kg more than those of females (Kozier et al, 2004).

       At ages 6 to 12 the average weight gain would be approximately 3.2 kg or 7 lbs per annum (Kozier et al, 2004).

      At ages 10 to 12 years for males, and 9 to 12 for females, most important weight gains would occur under normal health conditions (Kozier et al, 2004).

       Lastly, at about 12 years of age, both males and females children may weigh up to approximately 40 to 42 kg or 88 to 95 lb under normal health conditions, with the female weighing more than the male (Kozier et al, 2004).

Purpose of the Study

       This study was concerned mainly in finding out the level of precision of EMS personnel in measuring pediatric weight during emergency situations.

Statement of the Problem

        Specifically, the investigator was directed to answer the following questions:

Is there a significant difference between pediatric age and pediatric weight?
Is there a significant difference between pediatric gender and pediatric weight?
Is there a significant relationship among pediatric weight, age and gender?
Is there is significant difference between field data and FGH data on estimating pediatric weights?
Hypotheses

                  1. Ho: There is no significant difference between pediatric age and pediatric weight.

                2. Ho: There is no significant difference between pediatric gender and pediatric weight.

               3. Ho:  There is no significant relationship among pediatric weight, age, and gender.

              4.  Ho:  There are no differences between field data and FGH data on estimating pediatric weights.

Limitations

       The study was delimited to:

1.      Patients transported to Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, West Virginia with chart reviewed by the investigator on site;

2.      The data collected for the study recorded for patient lists and not for scientific use;

3.      The period of study was limited to twelve months; and

4.      The patient population was limited to one hundred homogenous Caucasians.

Significance of the Problem

           In a country like the United States of America, the need for appropriate pediatric emergency care in the pre-hospital environment is urgent; hence it becomes imperative to extend present day knowledge on precise determination of pediatric weights by Emergency Medical Service personnel in emergency situation.

       Likewise, the researcher believed that the findings of this study will help enhance precision of pediatric weight determination in emergency situations at Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, West Virginia.

       Furthermore, the baseline data gathered from the result of this study shall serve as guide of other researchers in their quest for additional knowledge specially those interested in the fields of Pediatrics Medicine, Nursing, and healthcare giver.

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

       The researcher went over a number of literature and studies relevant to the present study in different public and private libraries.  The literature studies which have bearing to the present day study are herein cited.

RELATED LITERATURE

        Wilson and Giddens (2001) stated that apt shape and vigor estimation offers an efficient scheme of gathering every form of facts that will clearly categorize a patient.  This is because the patients’ vigor, support system, and coping ability may control positively or negatively its physical condition (Wilson & Giddens, 2001).  Wilson & Giddens (2001) also claimed that patients’ comprehensive assessment is unrealistic if done per situation.  Because the reason the patients’ seeks medical help is already a determinant to guide assessment (Wilson & Giddens, 2001).

        In the case of ideal individual body weight, recommendations for optimum health conditions are nowadays commonly reflected on standardized tables and charts provided at proximate locations in pre-hospital environments (Kozier et al, 2004).  Nurses and doctors can readily calculate a value using the standardized rules (Kozier et al, 2004).  Likewise, many standardized formula were developed to assist calculation but were of limited samples (Kozier et al, 2004).  These however are limited to adults because in neonates to adolescence, nutritional requirements vary as well as the rate of metabolic and excretory processes, bringing about the variety of body weights.

       In addition, usually, height, weight, and head circumference are measures used by medical practitioners in the assessment of children’s physical conditions (Wilson & Giddens, 2001).

       In the light of the requirement for accurate measurement of pediatric pre-hospital

body weight determination which is vital to the functional survival of critically ill and injured children, provisions of timely and accurate pediatric emergency care in the pre-hospital environment must be installed (Seidel & Henderson, 1991).  However, some Emergency Medical Service systems were initially created for out-of-hospital emergencies in adults (Seidel & Henderson, 1991).  Pediatric Emergency Medical Service systems were only of secondary importance (Seidel & Henderson, 1991) which can be said to be inappropriate. This is because traditionally, one item to be considered is the fact that even in an emergency case; a child’s pediatric weight must be measured to determine the extent of dosages of medication to be applied when necessary.  Precisely then, experience, expertise, and training of pre-hospital providers in weight measurements must have been well developed to meet the needs of immediate and appropriate medical attention of children (Seidel & Henderson, 1991).

       Recently however, efforts have been exerted to enhance specific Emergency Medical Service pediatrics needs (Seidel & Henderson, 1991). Steps have been taken to improve the pre-hospital care of critically compromised children (Seidel & Henderson, 1991).

       One of the solutions to improve pre-hospital emergency care of the pediatric patient is the provision of accurate weight measurements (Lubitz et al, 1988).  This is because drug doses that will be used during pediatric emergency resuscitation, treatment or medication are always based on given body weight of the patient (Lubitz et al, 1988).  So, most pre-hospital care providers must have a means to accurately measure pediatric weights (Lubitz et al, 1988).

       There are many methods of measuring weights. One of this is the use of Broselow tape. It is a tape that is capable of gauging pediatric weights (Lubitz et al, 1988). The competence of Broselow tape was supported by a study conducted by Lubitz, Seidel, Chameides, Luten, Zaritsky and Campbell (1988).  Their measurements using the tool fell within 10 % error, indicative of accuracy level falling within tolerable range for children between 3.5 and 29 kilograms (Lubitz et al, 1988).  Additionally, in a separate study, the Broselow tape was accurate than the weight measurements made by pediatric residents and nurses (Lubitz et al, 1988).

       Another method is obtaining growth charts from the National Center for Health Statistics of the United States of America (Wilson & Giddens, 2001).

       Next is the platform scale which is also used for weighing infants and children (Wilson & Giddens, 2001).  It is a weighing scale with curve sides and a piece of paper to protect a naked infant against the metal (Wilson & Giddens, 2001).   The infants’ weight is read in terms of nearest ounces, ½ or 14 grams (Wilson & Giddens, 2001).  Also, the length of the child may likewise be measured.  This is done by laying the infant on a soft, rubberized, and graduated mat with a plastic footboard (Wilson & Giddens, 2001).  The measurements taken may be expressed in inches or centimeters (Wilson & Giddens, 2001).

       Though literatures indicated the idea that only some emergency department nurses and physicians relying only on mere inspections as a means of estimating pediatric weights had high percentage error, these are dreadful occasions leading to undue pediatric patient risk of accurate resuscitation, treatment or cure. Cumbersome may be as it is and unproven by statistical research, methods such as hanging leg and parental weight are more accurate.  Nevertheless, the alternative of using Broselow tape to measure pre-hospital pediatric weight has proven reliability according to some paramedic literatures.

       In relation to the above parametric designs of weight measurements, dosages of treatments for children which may be indicated on medical orders have been taken from the perspective of body weights (Kozier et al, 2004).  However, body surface area which is determined by a nomogram with a child’s height and weight measurements is the most accurate basis for calculating drug administration dosages (Kozier et al, 2004).  A child’s body surface area according to weight and height is revealed by a standard nomogram (Kozier et al, 2004).

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

       This study presents the research method, study area, experimental materials, data collection, and statistical treatment used to test the null hypothesis.

The Research Method

       This study made use of the archival quantitative method of research as it was aimed at ascertaining the accuracy and precision in the determination of a child’s weight by pre-hospital workers.

       The study was conducted for twelve months considering:

1.      One hundred pediatric patients of Ruby Memorial Hospital;

2.      Neonates and up to 12 years of age;

3.      Patients brought to RD per Emergency Medical Service;

4.      Previous record of Emergency Medical Service;

5.      Admitted to Intensive Care Unit;  and

6.      Actual weight recorded upon admission to the pediatric Care Unit.

       Complying with the requirement for comparative retrospective study, pediatric weight measurements by Emergency Medical Service personnel in the field will actually be compared with the data obtained in the pediatric Intensive Care Unit.  The data will be collected from the patient record in a retrospective manner from the records of Ruby Memorial Hospital Pediatric Department charts at a rate of every 3rd chart in a file of charts that meets the criteria.  The data from these records will then be sorted, tabulated, statistically treated and analyzed to draw findings, conclusions and recommendations.

The Study Area

       The Ruby Memorial Hospital, Morgantown, West Virginia, United States of America was used as the study area for purposes of the study.

Statistical Treatment

In treating the data statistically, the researcher utilized the following:

      Mean  age of patient.  This was based on the number of days, months and years had lived after birth.  The mean was computed by adding the number of ages and dividing it by the number of cases.

Formula:

            __

             X    = Σx

                       n

               __

where:     X   =   mean

               Σx   =   sum of number of days, months, and years of age

                 n   =   number of patients

         t- test . This statistical tool was used to determine the interpretation of the hypothesis whether it is Accept or Reject. This study will examine the two t- test using the patients on Field and FGH. This is to identify if the pediatric weight has some thing to do with Age and Sex

          Formula :

                          __

                            tc =     X – µo

                                       s­­___

                                    √ n

          where:

tc = computed value of t

__

            X = sample mean

µo = population mean

            s = sample standard deviation

            n = sample size

        Analysis of Variance.  The analysis of variance was used to test whether the different weights and the ages of patients significantly differed in gender differences. This is also used test whether a significant interaction exists between weights of patients and gender of patients, and between the weight of patients and the ages of patients.

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

      This chapter puts forward the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the data collected. The questions identified in the problem are used as the bases for the presentation. The sequence of the structure includes table, analysis and interpretation of the data of the current study.

PRESENTATION

This research paper examined the level of precision of Emergency Medical Services personnel in measuring pediatric weight during emergency situations. This research study was done using archival data. It was divided into two categories such as: On Field and On FGH. The researcher took pains in analyzing the different parts of the study by examining the reliability of the estimation of pediatric weights by emergency department personnel on field and at Ruby Memorial Hospitals.

Data Analysis

       For this study the researcher made Diagrams to visualize the flow of the patient on field and on FGH as shown on diagrams 1 & 2.

Diagram 1

Diagram 1 shows that patient number 21 has the longest range, followed by patient number 16 and then by patient number 2. It is also notable that out of 29 patients only 7 patients have a short range. This means that the people on the place of study were healthy because there was minimal number of patients who fell within the long range.

Diagram 2

Diagram 2 shows that there was a normal distribution of patients in every category. This means that the samples used on the place of study were properly distributed as variables.

Table 1.  Summary of Field and FGH data results

Variable
Field
FGH

t
Interpretation
t
Interpretation
Age
14.506
Ho : Reject
17.325
Ho : Reject
Gender
– .285
Ho : Accept
.120
Ho : Accept

       The table 1 Summary of field and FGH shows that the Age variable under the category Field data has a computed t of14.506 and a tabulated t value of 1.669. The computed t of 14.506 is greater than the tabulated t value of 1.669, which means that the null hypothesis is rejected. This implies that there is significant relationship between the pediatric weight and the Age.

       The Gender variable under category Filed has a computed t of – . 285 and a tabulated t value of 1.669. The computed t of -.285 is less than the tabulated t value of 1.669, which means that the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is significant relationship between the pediatric weight and the Gender.

     It is also notable that the Age variable under the category FGH has a computed t of 17.325 and a tabulated t value of 1.658. The computed t of 17.325 is greater than the tabulated t value of 1.658, which means that the null hypothesis is rejected. This implies that there is significant relationship between the pediatric weight and the Age.

      The Gender variable under category FGH has a computed t of .120 and a tabulated t value of 1.658. The computed t of .120 is less than the tabulated t value of 1.658, which means that the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is significant relationship between the pediatric weight and the Gender. The researcher found out that there are no differences between Field data and FGH data on estimating pediatric weights

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          This chapter presents a brief summary of the study, the salient findings based on the data gathered, the corresponding conclusions drawn, and the recommendations offered.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

       The main problem in this study involved the determination of reliability of the estimation of pediatric weights by emergency department personnel on field and at Ruby Memorial Hospital specifically, the study aimed to answer the following questions:

1.      Is there a significant difference between pediatric age and pediatric

      weight?

2.      Is there a significant difference between pediatric gender and pediatric weight?

3.      Is there a significant relationship among pediatric weight, age and gender?

4.      Is there is significant difference between field data and FGH data on estimating pediatric weights?

       The following null hypothesis had been investigated:

               1. Ho: There is no significant difference between pediatric age and pediatric weight.

               2. Ho: There is no significant difference between pediatric gender and pediatric weight.

               3. Ho:  There is no significant relationship among pediatric weight, age, and gender.

               4.  Ho:  There are no differences between field data and FGH data on estimating pediatric weights.

       This study deemed significant to extend present day knowledge on the appropriate estimation of pediatric emergency care in the pre-hospital environment; hence it becomes imperative to extend present day knowledge on precise determination of pediatric weights by Emergency Medical Service personnel in emergency situation. It is also significant in helping enhance precision of pediatric weight determination in emergency situations at Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, West Virginia.   Furthermore, the baseline data gathered from the result of this study shall serve as guide of other researchers in their quest for additional knowledge specially those interested in the fields of Pediatrics Medicine, Nursing, and healthcare giver.

Treatment of the Data

        The researcher used f distribution, t-test, and analysis of variance for the reliability of the estimation of pediatric weights by emergency department personnel on field and at the Ruby Memorial Hospital.

THE FINDINGS

Testing the hypothesis No, 1

The researcher found out that there is significant difference between pediatric age and pediatric weight. This was proven by the t-test interpretation Reject which means that the computed value of t is greater than the tabulated value of t.

Testing the hypothesis No. 2

It reveals that there is no significant difference between pediatric gender and pediatric weight. This means that the computed value of t is less than the tabulated value of t.

Testing the hypothesis No. 3

     It is notable that there is significant relationship among pediatric weight, age, and gender.

Testing the hypothesis No. 4

It is remarkable that there are no differences between field data and FGH data on estimating pediatric weights.

CONCLUSIONS

       Based on the findings of the study, the researcher came up with the following conclusions:

There is significant difference between pediatric age and pediatric weight.
There is no significant difference between pediatric gender and pediatric weight.
There is significant relationship among pediatric weight, age, and gender.
4.    There are no differences between field data and FGH data on estimating pediatric weights.

RECOMMENDATIONS

       In consonance with the findings of the study, the following are recommended:

1.      A study should be conducted using data from 2 to 3 more different host sources to verify further the reliability of the above findings.

2.      A study should also be conducted using specific weight measuring devise to asses the reliability of the device.

3.      Further study should likewise be conducted using more random samples.

Appendices

Table 1

Field Data

#
Age (da)
Sex
ED Wt(kg)
Wt in limit (lbs)
1
198.5
1
8.1
18.5
2
3285
1
40
103.5
3
1460
2
20
39
4
47.41667
1
4.8
10.25
5
456.25
2
10.6
23.5625
6
3
1
3
6.8125
7
669.1667
1
12.2
27.4375
8
2555
1
25
47
9
2555
2
25
61
10
1581.667
2
11
24.5
11
1855.417
1
25
47
12
730
2
10.5
23.75
13
19
2
3.9
71.9375
14
760.4167
2
15.5
34
15
2068.333
1
20.4
45
16
4015
1
40
85
17
669.1667
1
10
22
18
1034.167
1
15
31
19
349.5833
2
8.5
18.25
20
10
1
4
111
21
4380
1
60
21.0625
22
231.9167
1
9.2
21.0625
23
1642.5
2
16.3
36
24
216.9167
2
8.9
19.5625
25
1186.25
2
16
35.3125
26
1186.25
1
10
38
27
1916.25
1
20
55
28
638.75
2
10
22.0625
29
2159.583
1
20
48

Table 2

ER Patients Ages 18 and Under Admitted to FGH for Service Dates: 01/ 28/ 03 – 01 / 23 /04

Visit
Age (da)
Sex
Weight(lbs)
1
6570
1
185
2
199.5
1
18.525
3
3285
1
103.5
4
1794.583
2
39
5
47.41667
1
10.25
6
456.25
2
23.5625
7
3
1
6.8125
8
669.1667
1
27.4625
9
6205
2
11
10
2555
1
47
11
2555
2
61
12
1581.667
2
24.5
13
1855.417
1
47
14
6570
2
144
15
730
2
23.75
16
19
2
7.9625
17
760.4167
2
34
18
6205
2
214
19
2068.333
1
45
20
4015
1
85
21
669.1667
1
22
22
6205
2
170
23
1034.167
1
31
24
349.5833
2
18.25
25
10
1
8.7375
26
4380
1
111
27
231.9167
1
21.0625
28
1642.5
2
36
29
6570
2
100
30
216.9167
2
19.5625
31
1186.25
2
35.325
32
1186.25
1
38
33
1916.25
1
55
34
219.9167
2
18.8875
35
5110
2
137.5
36
2037.917
1
35.0875
37
425.8333
1
23
38
1825
1
53
39
699.5833
1
23.6825
40
161.0833
1
21.175
41
297.75
1
20.625
42
80.83333
1
10.625
43
2190
1
42
44
425.8333
2
20.05625
45
80.83333
2
13.625
46
1460
2
28.4375
47
486.6667
1
24.1875
48
138.6667
2
13.45
49
321.1667
1
23.625
50
6570
2
200
51
3650
1
100
52
912.5
1
33.6375
53
6570
1
150
54
1520.833
1
36
55
6205
2
114
56
5475
2
120
57
3650
2
147
58
342.5833
2
21.6875
59
212.9167
1
13.7
60
365
1
23
61
5110
2
107
62
547.5
2
24.75
63
4015
2
97
64
6205
1
112
65
118.25
2
12.475
66
2037.917
1
52
67
205.5
1
21.5
68
6570
1
160.0875
69
4745
1
65
70
326.1667
1
21
71
6570
1
140
72
6570
2
128
73
638.75
2
22.0625
74
6570
2
144
75
2159.583
1
48
76
6205
1
108

Table 3

Regression of FGH

Variables Entered/Removed (b)

Model
Variables Entered
Variables Removed
Method
1
AGE, SEX(a)
.
Enter
a  All requested variables entered.

b  Dependent Variable: Weight

Model Summary

Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.899(a)
.809
.803
23.82288
a  Predictors: (Constant), AGE, SEX

ANOVA (b)

Model

Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
174946.467
2
87473.233
154.130
.000(a)
Residual41429.671
73
567.530

Total216376.138
75

a  Predictors: (Constant), AGE, SEX

b  Dependent Variable: Weight

Coefficients (a)

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
BStd. Error
Beta

1
(Constant)

10.634

8.550

1.244

.218

 SEX.668
5.563
.006
.120
.905
AGE.020
.001
.898
17.325
.000
a  Dependent Variable: Weight

Table 4

Regression of Field

Variables Entered/Removed (b)

Model
Variables Entered
Variables Removed
Method
1
SEX, AGE(a)
.
Enter
a  All requested variables entered.

b  Dependent Variable: Wt

Model Summary

Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.947(a)
.897
.889
4.17646
a  Predictors: (Constant), SEX, AGE

ANOVA (b)

Model

Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
3940.880
2
1970.440
112.966
.000(a)

Residual
453.513
26
17.443

Total
4394.392
28

a  Predictors: (Constant), SEX, AGE

b  Dependent Variable: Wt

Coefficients(a)

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.

B
Std. Error
Beta

1
(Constant)
4.377
2.768

1.581
.126

AGE
.010
.001
.942
14.506
.000

SEX
-.463
1.624
-.019
-.285
.778
a  Dependent Variable: Wt

ER Patients Ages 18 and Under Admitted to FGH

For Service Dates: 01/ 28/ 03 – 01 / 23 /04

Visit
Age
Sex
Wt in limit (lbs)
OZS
ozs to lbs
total lbs
Age
y
y to d
m
m to d
d
total d
1
18
1
185
0
0
185
18
18
6570

0

6570
2
6m 17d
1
18
8.4
0.525
18.525
6m 17d

0
6
182.5
17
199.5
3
9
1
103
8
0.5
103.5
9
9
3285

0

3285
4
4y11m
2
39
0
0
39
4y11m
4
1460
11
334.5833

1794.583
5
1m 17d
1
10
4
0.25
10.25
1m 17d

0
1
30.41667
17
47.41667
6
1y3m
2
23
9
0.5625
23.5625
1y3m
1
365
3
91.25

456.25
7
3d
1
6
13
0.8125
6.8125
3d

0

0
3
3
8
1y10m
1
27
7.4
0.4625
27.4625
1y10m
1
365
10
304.1667

669.1667
9
17
2
11
0
0
11
17
17
6205

0

6205
10
7
1
47
0
0
47
7
7
2555

0

2555
11
7
2
61
0
0
61
7
7
2555

0

2555
12
4y4m
2
24
8
0.5
24.5
4y4m
4
1460
4
121.6667

1581.667
13
5y1m
1
47
0
0
47
5y1m
5
1825
1
30.41667

1855.417
14
18
2
144
0
0
144
18
18
6570

0

6570
15
2y
2
23
12
0.75
23.75
2y
2
730

0

730
16
19d
2
7
15
0.9625
7.9625
19d

0

0
19
19
17
2y1m
2
34
0
0
34
2y1m
2
730
1
30.41667

760.4167
18
17
2
214
0
0
214
17
17
6205

0

6205
19
5y8m
1
45
0
0
45
5y8m
5
1825
8
243.3333

2068.333
20
11
1
85
0
0
85
11
11
4015

0

4015
21
1y10m
1
22

0
22
1y10m
1
365
10
304.1667

669.1667
22
17
2
170

0
170
17
17
6205

0

6205
23
2y10m
1
31

0
31
2y10m
2
730
10
304.1667

1034.167
24
11m15d
2
18
4
0.25
18.25
11m15d

0
11
334.5833
15
349.5833
25
10d
1
8
12
0.7375
8.7375
10d

0

0
10
10
26
12
1
111

0
111
12
12
4380

0

4380
27
7m19d
1
21
1
0.0625
21.0625
7m19d

0
7
212.9167
19
231.9167
28
4y6m
2
36

0
36
4y6m
4
1460
6
182.5

1642.5
29
18
2
100

0
100
18
18
6570

0

6570
30
7m4d
2
19
9
0.5625
19.5625
7m4d

0
7
212.9167
4
216.9167
31
3y3m
2
35
5.2
0.325
35.325
3y3m
3
1095
3
91.25
0
1186.25
32
3y3m
1
38

0
38
3y3m
3
1095
3
91.25
0
1186.25
33
5y3m
1
55

0
55
5y3m
5
1825
3
91.25

1916.25
34
7m7d
2
18
14
0.8875
18.8875
7m7d

0
7
212.9167
7
219.9167
35
14
2
138

0
137.5
14
14
5110

0

5110
36
5y7m
1
35
1.4
0.0875
35.0875
5y7m
5
1825
7
212.9167

2037.917
37
1y2m
1
23

0
23
1y2m
1
365
2
60.83333

425.8333
38
5y
1
53

0
53
5y
5
1825

0

1825
39
1y11m
1
23
9
0.5625
23.6825
1y11m
1
365
11
334.5833

699.5833
40
5m9d
1
21
2.8
0.175
21.175
5m9d

0
5
152.0833
9
161.0833
41
9m24d
1
20
10
0.625
20.625
9m24d

0
9
273.75
24
297.75
42
2m20d
1
10
10
0.625
10.625
2m20d

0
2
60.83333
20
80.83333
43
6
1
42

0
42
6
6
2190

0

2190
44
1y2m
2
20
0.9
0.05625
20.05625
1y2m
1
365
2
60.83333

425.8333
45
2m20d
2
13
10
0.625
13.625
2m20d

0
2
60.83333
20
80.83333
46
4y
2
28
7
0.4375
28.4375
4y
4
1460

0

1460
47
1y4m
1
24
3
0.1875
24.1875
1y4m
1
365
4
121.6667

486.6667
48
4m17d
2
13
7.2
0.45
13.45
4m17d

0
4
121.6667
17
138.6667
49
10m17d
1
23
10
0.625
23.625
10m17d

0
10
304.1667
17
321.1667
50
18
2
200

0
200
18
18
6570

0

6570
51
0
1
100

0
100
10
10
3650

0

3650
52
2y6m
1
33
10
0.6375
33.6375
2y6m
2
730
6
182.5

912.5
53
18
1
150

0
150
18
18
6570

0

6570
54
4y2m
1
36

0
36
4y2m
4
1460
2
60.83333

1520.833
55
17
2
114

0
114
17
17
6205

0

6205
56
15
2
120

0
120
15
15
5475

0

5475
57
10
2
147

0
147
10
10
3650

0

3650
58
11m8d
2
21
11
0.6875
21.6875
11m8d

0
11
334.5833
8
342.5833
59
7m
1
13
11
0.7
13.7
7m

0
7
212.9167

212.9167
60
1y
1
23

0
23
1y
1
365

0

365
61
14
2
107

0
107
14
14
5110

0

5110
62
1y6m
2
24
12
0.75
24.75
1y6m
1
365
6
182.5

547.5
63
11
2
97

0
97
11
11
4015

0

4015
64
17
1
112

0
112
17
17
6205

0

6205
65
3m27d
2
12
7.6
0.475
12.475
3m27d

0
3
91.25
27
118.25
66
5y7m
1
52

0
52
5y7m
5
1825
7
212.9167

2037.917
67
6m23d
1
21
8
0.5
21.5
6m23d

0
6
182.5
23
205.5
68
18
1
160
1.4
0.0875
160.0875
18
18
6570

0

6570
69
13
1
65

0
65
13
13
4745

0

4745
70
10m22d
1
21

0
21
10m22d

0
10
304.1667
22
326.1667
71
18
1
140

0
140
18
18
6570

0

6570
72
18
2
128

0
128
18
18
6570

0

6570
73
1y9m
2
22
1
0.0625
22.0625
1y9m
1
365
9
273.75

638.75
74
18
2
144

0
144
18
18
6570

0

6570
75
5y11m
1
48

0
48
5y11m
5
1825
11
334.5833

2159.583
76
17
1
108

0
108
17
17
6205

0

6205

Legend:  Male = 1

                           Female = 2

Patient
Age
Sex
ED Wt(kg)
Wt in limit (lbs)
lbs
oz to lbs
lbs
Wt in limit (lbs)
Age
y
y to d
m
m to d
d
total d
1
6m 17d
1
8.1
18 lbs 8 oz
18
8
0.5
18.5
6m 17d

0
6
182.5
16
198.5
2
9y
1
40
103 lbs 8 oz
103
8
0.5
103.5
9y
9
3285

0

3285
3
4y
2
20
39
39

0
39
4y
4
1460

0

1460
4
1m 17d
1
4.8
10 lbs 4 oz
10
4
0.25
10.25
1m 17d

0
1
30.41667
17
47.41667
5
1y 3m
2
10.6
23 lbs 9 oz
23
9
0.5625
23.5625
1y 3m
1
365
3
91.25

456.25
6
3d
1
3
6lbs 13 oz
6
13
0.8125
6.8125
3d

0

0
3
3
7
1y10m
1
12.2
27lbs 7oz
27
7
0.4375
27.4375
1y10m
1
365
10
304.1667

669.1667
8
7y
1
25
47
47

0
47
7y
7
2555

0

2555
9
7y
2
25
61
61

0
61
7y
7
2555

0

2555
10
4y4m
2
11
24 lbs 8 oz
24
8
0.5
24.5
4y4m
4
1460
4
121.6667

1581.667
11
5y1m
1
25
47
47

0
47
5y1m
5
1825
1
30.41667

1855.417
12
2y
2
10.5
23lbs 12 oz
23
12
0.75
23.75
2y
2
730

0

730
13
19d
2
3.9
71lbs 15 oz
71
15
0.9375
71.9375
19d

0

0
19
19
14
2y1m
2
15.5
34lbs
34

0
34
2y1m
2
730
1
30.41667

760.4167
15
5y8
1
20.4
45 lbs
45

0
45
5y8
5
1825
8
243.3333

2068.333
16
11y
1
40
85 lbs
85

0
85
11y
11
4015

0

4015
17
1y10m
1
10
22 lbs
22

0
22
1y10m
1
365
10
304.1667

669.1667
18
2y10m
1
15
31 lbs
31

0
31
2y10m
2
730
10
304.1667

1034.167
19
11m15d
2
8.5
18 lbs 4 oz
18
4
0.25
18.25
11m15d

0
11
334.5833
15
349.5833
20
10d
1
4
111
111

0
111
10d

0

0
10
10
21
12
1
60
21 lbs 1 oz
21
1
0.0625
21.0625
12
12
4380

0

4380
22
7m19d
1
9.2
21lbs 1 oz
21
1
0.0625
21.0625
7m19d

0
7
212.9167
19
231.9167
23
4y 6m
2
16.3
36
36

0
36
4y 6m
4
1460
6
182.5

1642.5
24
7m4d
2
8.9
19 lbs 9oz
19
9
0.5625
19.5625
7m4d

0
7
212.9167
4
216.9167
25
3y3m
2
16
35lbs 5oz
35
5
0.3125
35.3125
3y3m
3
1095
3
91.25

1186.25
26
3y3m
1
10
38
38

0
38
3y3m
3
1095
3
91.25

1186.25
27
5y 3m
1
20
55
55

0
55
5y 3m
5
1825
3
91.25

1916.25
28
1y9m
2
10
22lbs 1oz
22
1
0.0625
22.0625
1y9m
1
365
9
273.75

638.75
29
5y11m
1
20
48
48

48
5y11m
5
1825
11
334.5833

2159.583

Legend:
male = 1

female = 2

References

Kozier, B. et al.  (2004). Fundamentals Of Nursing: Concepts, Process, and Practice.

      Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Lubitz, D.C. et al.  (1988). A Rapid Method for Estimating Weight and Resuscitation

       Drug Dosages from Length in the Pediatric Age Group: Annals of Emergency

      Medicine.

Seidel, J. S, and Henderson, D.P.  (1991). Emergency Medical Services For Children: A

       Report to the Nation.  Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Wilson, S. F. & Giddens, J. F.  (2001).  Health Assessment for Nursing Practice.  2nd ed.

       United States of America: Mosby Inc.

Haven't found the Essay You Want?

Get your custom essay sample

For Only $13/page