NurseJet
Back to Discover
Research ArticleResearchNew Grad Friendly

Nurses' manual fever check caught every fever but over-called it, while a forehead scanner was better for confirming fever

Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine (PubMed)Feb 1, 2026

AI-summarized from the linked source. Educational brief, not medical advice.

Brief summary

In a single-center diagnostic accuracy study of 279 adults screened at emergency triage, manual fever checking by nurses detected fever with 100% sensitivity but lower specificity, while a non-contact forehead infrared thermometer was the more reliable way to confirm fever, especially when its cutoff was lowered to 37.5 degrees C.

What NurseJet pulled from the source

This single-center diagnostic accuracy study evaluated adult patients in the triage area of an emergency department in Tehran, Iran, between May and September 2023. Five emergency nurses assessed each patient with three index tests, patient-perceived fever (PPF), manual fever checking (MFC), and a non-contact frontal infrared thermometer (NCFIT), followed by a tympanic thermometer as the reference standard (fever defined as 38 degrees C or higher). Among 279 patients (mean age 52.2 years, 52% male), the tympanic thermometer identified 147 as febrile and 132 as non-febrile. Manual fever checking was the most sensitive index test at 100% (95% CI 97.5 to 100.0), with a negative likelihood ratio of 0 and accuracy of 93.9% (95% CI 89.9 to 96.0). The NCFIT had the lowest sensitivity (85.71%; 95% CI 78.9 to 90.9) but the highest specificity (98.48%; 95% CI 93.6 to 99.5) and accuracy (97.5%; 95% CI 93.1 to 99.8). When the NCFIT fever threshold was lowered to 37.5 degrees C, its sensitivity rose to 99% (95% CI 97.4 to 99.9) while specificity stayed at 98% (95% CI 94 to 99.6). The authors concluded that manual checking and patient-perceived fever could rule fever out but needed the NCFIT or tympanic thermometer to rule it in.

Why this matters for nurses

Fever screening at triage shapes early decisions about isolation, workups, and urgency, and nurses often rely on a quick touch of the skin or the patient's own report. This study may matter for nurses because it puts numbers on how well those quick checks perform, showing that a hands-on check rarely missed a real fever but tended to over-call it, so a normal touch was reassuring while a positive one deserved confirmation.

Bedside takeaway

Be aware that in one ED study, a nurse's hands-on fever check ruled fever out with 100% sensitivity but over-called it, while a non-contact forehead scanner was more reliable for confirming fever, especially at a 37.5 degrees C threshold.

Explain this for my unit

Key takeaways

  • Manual fever checking by nurses was the most sensitive method at 100% (95% CI 97.5 to 100.0), with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.
  • The non-contact forehead infrared thermometer had the lowest sensitivity (85.71%) but the highest specificity (98.48%) and accuracy (97.5%).
  • Lowering the forehead scanner's fever threshold to 37.5 degrees C raised its sensitivity to 99% while specificity held at 98%.
  • Manual checking and patient-perceived fever could rule out fever but required the forehead scanner or tympanic thermometer to confirm it.

Practice implications

  • For emergency nurses, the findings suggest that a hands-on fever check or the patient's own sense of fever is a reasonable way to rule fever out, given the perfect sensitivity seen here, but a device reading is needed to confirm it before acting. Where a non-contact forehead thermometer is used for screening, this study found a 37.5 degrees C cutoff caught far more true fevers than the standard 38 degrees C setting.

Limitations & cautions

  • This was a single-center study of 279 adults in one emergency department triage area over a few months in 2023, so results may not transfer to other settings, populations, or devices. Only five nurses performed the manual checks, the tympanic thermometer served as the reference rather than a core temperature standard, and the very high manual-check sensitivity may reflect local technique and the specific patient mix.
  • AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations

Exact source links

Public citations are filtered to exact credible source pages. Homepage-only or invalid links stay in admin review and are not shown here.

Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine (PubMed)

Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine (PubMed). Comparing the Accuracy of Patient-Perceived Fever, Manual Fever Checking, and Non-Contact Frontal Infrared Thermometer; A Cross-sectional Study.

Open original source

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42305725/

Professional education only

This summary does not replace clinical judgment, facility policy, provider orders, or official guidelines. Verify practice changes against the original source and local protocol.

Related briefs

More updates for this clinical area

Back to Discover

Brain Sciences (PubMed)

In a retrospective study of 728 acute-care stroke hospitalizations, nursing complexity (the number of nursing diagnoses) and nursing intensity (the number of nursing actions) differed across ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack, with hemorrhagic stroke showing the highest intensity and transient ischemic attack the lowest.

EmergencyLeadershipAI summaryReview source

Frontiers in Medicine (PubMed)

In a cross-sectional survey of 610 hospital nurses in the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia, how often nursing care was rationed was tied more to the type of ward and workload than to nurses' own demographic or professional characteristics, with emergency departments showing the most omitted care.

LeadershipEmergencyAI summaryReview source

Journal of Emergency Nursing (PubMed)

In a retrospective cohort of 1076 adults aged 40 or older with acute myocardial infarction at a Taiwan teaching hospital, 19% presented without chest-related symptoms, and reduced level of consciousness and greater functional dependence were each independently linked to these atypical presentations.

EmergencyTelemetryAI summaryReview source