Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Analysis

Pulse oximetry in primary care: factors affecting accuracy and interpretation

Paul Silverston, Marco Ferrari and Valentina Quaresima
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (716): 132-133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp22X718769
Paul Silverston
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK; Visiting Professor of Primary Care, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK.
Roles: Visiting Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marco Ferrari
University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy.
Roles: Professor of Biochemistry
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Valentina Quaresima
University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy.
Roles: Professor of Biochemistry
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic saw a rapid increase in the use of pulse oximetry devices (PODs) in primary care to triage and monitor large numbers of patients and to help decide which patients required admission to hospital. In the UK, this included providing 300 000 PODs to patients as part of the ‘virtual ward’ programme and there have been calls to extend the use of remote monitoring to patients with other medical conditions.1–3 However, the increased use of pulse oximetry has been accompanied by growing concern over the potential for PODs to produce inaccurate oxygen saturation (SpO2) readings and the effect that this could have on critical decisions regarding the management of patients. This article discusses the factors that can lead to inaccurate SpO2 readings and the implications that this could have for both GPs and patients.

THE ACCURACY OF PULSE OXIMETRY DEVICES (PODS)

In early 2021, both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Agency (MHRA) issued safety communications regarding the potential for PODs to produce inaccurate readings.4,5 The FDA’s assessment of the situation is well balanced and worth noting:

‘Pulse oximeters have limitations and a risk of inaccuracy under certain circumstances. In many cases, the level of inaccuracy may be small and not clinically meaningful; however, there is a risk that an inaccurate measurement may result in unrecognised low oxygen saturation levels. Therefore, it is important to understand the limitations of pulse oximetry and how accuracy is calculated and interpreted.’4

The accuracy of a POD is measured by comparing the SpO2 reading to the arterial blood gas oxygen saturation (SaO2) reading, across the range of SpO2 values from 70–100%. Most manufacturers declare an accuracy of +/− 2–3% over that range. The typical accuracy (reported as Accuracy Root Mean Square …

View Full Text

  RCGP login

Members, please Login at RCGP to access the journal online

  Subscriber login

Enter your BJGP login information below.

Log in using your username and password

Enter your British Journal of General Practice username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
Forgot your user name or password?

Log in through your institution

You may be able to gain access using your login credentials for your institution. Contact your library if you do not have a username and password.
If your organization uses OpenAthens, you can log in using your OpenAthens username and password. To check if your institution is supported, please see this list. Contact your library for more details.

Pay Per Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 1 day for US$35.00

Regain Access - You can regain access to a recent Pay per Article purchase if your access period has not yet expired.

  Subscribe

Subscribe to the Journal - Subscribe to the print and/or online journal.

Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 72 (716)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 72, Issue 716
March 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pulse oximetry in primary care: factors affecting accuracy and interpretation
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Pulse oximetry in primary care: factors affecting accuracy and interpretation
Paul Silverston, Marco Ferrari, Valentina Quaresima
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (716): 132-133. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp22X718769

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Pulse oximetry in primary care: factors affecting accuracy and interpretation
Paul Silverston, Marco Ferrari, Valentina Quaresima
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (716): 132-133. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp22X718769
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • INTRODUCTION
    • THE ACCURACY OF PULSE OXIMETRY DEVICES (PODS)
    • SAMPLING ERRORS
    • INTERPRETING SpO2 READINGS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Polygenic risk scores: improving the prediction of future disease or added complexity?
  • Constipation in autistic people and people with learning disabilities
  • Lesser-known types of violence: helping professionals to signal and act
Show more Analysis

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242