Use of non-contact infrared thermometers in rehabilitation patients: a randomized controlled study

ObjectiveIn this randomized controlled study, we aimed to determine whether non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) are more time-efficient and create less patient distress than mercury axillary thermometers (MATs) and infrared tympanic thermometers (ITTs).MethodsForty-five rehabilitation inpatients were randomly assigned to one of three groups (NCIT, MAT, and ITT). Time required to measure body temperature with an NCIT, MAT, and ITT was recorded. We examined associations between time required to take patients’ temperature and measuring device used. Patient distress experienced during temperature measurement using the three thermometers was recorded.ResultsA significantly longer average time was required to measure temperatures using the MAT (mean 43.17, standard deviation SD] 8.39) than the ITT (mean 13.74, SD 1.63) and NCIT (mean 12.13, SD 1.18). The thermometer used influenced the time required to measure body temperature (t = 33.99). There were significant differences among groups (NCIT vs. ITT, NCIT vs. MAT, and ITT vs. MAT) regarding patient distress among the different thermometers. Most distress arose owing to needing help from others, sleep disruption, and boredom.ConclusionThe NCIT has clinically relevant advantages over the ITT and MAT in measuring body temperature among rehabilitation patients, including saving nurses’ time and avoiding unnecessary patient distress.Clinical trial registration number (http://www.chictr.org.cn): ChiCTR1800019756.