Abstract Aim Accurate determination of core body temperature in critically ill patients is required for initiating diagnosis and management. (1) Ideally, temperature measurement should be non-invasive, hygienic, convenient, and affordable. Infrared thermometers are convenient and non-invasive but sensitive to environmental factors. Alternatively, tympanic thermometers are cost effective but invasive. Various observational studies have concluded that tympanic thermometers have high specificity/sensitivity compared to infrared thermometers (2,3). We aimed to demonstrate accuracy of tympanic over infrared thermometers. Method In this observational prospective study, eighty patients (forty each) admitted in intensive care from February 2021 – July 2021 were included. Temperature measurements with were conducted - measuring differences between digital and tympanic thermometers. A Plan Do Study Act cycle was used to facilitate change. Excel and SPSS software were used for data analysis. Results Our study concluded a statistically significant (p<0.01) difference in readings with mean difference of 1.18°C (highest -6°C, lowest- 0.5°C). Pyrexia was undetected in 4 of 40 patients with digital thermometers. Additionally, two patients undergoing hypothermia correction were not adequately measured. Therefore, infrared thermometers were significantly less sensitive and were replaced with tympanic thermometers. A second cycle conducted again demonstrated significant (p<0.01) difference with mean difference of 1.92°C. (highest -6.5°C, lowest -1°C). Conclusions Tympanic thermometers have higher accuracy and precision over digital thermometers. We managed to establish change during our audit with concluding evidence showing infrared thermometers procure false observations affecting patient care, hence, unsafe. In conclusion, tympanic thermometers should be encouraged in critical care settings for vigilant care.