Is the method of determining heart rate by radial pulse always accurate? why or why not?

It is quick and a reasonably accurate way for general purposes! However it is an %26quot;averaging%26quot; method suitable for steady state situations eg a resting patient, but not the best way when you need very accurate or %26quot;instantaneous%26quot; heart rate data. In that case you%26#039;d use en electrical sensing device such as those used on patients in hospitals for electrocardiograms where the electrodes are stuck on to the bare chest or like the sports training aid the %26quot;Polar%26#039; and other brand chest-strapped heart rate monitors. even the finger clip sensors or the ear clip sensors are reasonable at providing live-time monitoring. But when you don%26#039;t have the expensive sensors wrist detection is reasonable too, provided the subject%26#039;s wrist muscles are not moved so you don%26#039;t get confused between real pulses and muscular twitches. If when counting, you %26quot;lose%26quot; the pulse, keep counting at the previous rhythm and re-locate fingers to find the strongest pulse. For heartrate that is changing, most often decreasing due to rest after an exercise bout, use a shorter time and multiply appropriately (eg 10 seconds and multiply by 6 or 15 seconds and X 4) to make it beats per minute rather than counting for a whole minute. Note that the shorter the count time the larger the error after multiplying, so take extra care to locate a strong spulse site before starting to cont

Is the method of determining heart rate by radial pulse always accurate? why or why not?

You may not feel all of the heartbeats. A heart rate of 180 might have only every other beat perfusing and be felt as 90.

Also, individual anatomies vary. A given person might not have much of a radial pulse because of a kink in the vessel or anomalous vessels.

Lastly, you maybe feeling your own pulse with your fingertips, not the patient%26#039;s.