Nurse by numbers: The impact of early warning systems on nurses' higher-order thinking, a quantitative study.

AIM: To evaluate registered nurses' perceptions of whether the mandated use of the early warning system vital signs tool impacts the development of nurses' higher-order thinking skills. DESIGN: A concurrent mixed methods study design. METHOD: Using an online survey, registered nurses' perceptions were elucidated on whether early warning system algorithmic tools affected the development of their higher-order thinking. Likert-type matrix questions with additional qualitative fields were used to obtain information on nurse's perceptions of the tool's usefulness, clinical confidence in using the tool, compliance with escalation protocols, work environment and perceived compliance barriers. RESULTS: Most of the 305 (91%) participants included in the analysis had more than 5 years of nursing experience. Most nurses supported the early warning tool and were happy to comply with escalation protocols if the early warning score concurred with their assessment of the patient (63.6%). When the score and the nurse's higher-order thinking did not align, some had the confidence to override the escalation protocol (40.0%), while others omitted (69.4%) or inaccurately documented vital signs (63.3%) to achieve the desired score. Very few nurses (3.6%) believe using early warning tools did not impede the development of higher-order thinking. CONCLUSION: Although experienced nurses appreciate the support of early warning tools, most value patient safety above the tools and rely on their higher-order thinking. The sustained development and use of nurses' higher-order thinking should be encouraged, possibly by adding a critical thinking criterion to existing algorithmic tools. IMPACT: The study has implications for all nurses who utilize algorithmic tools, such as early warning systems, in their practice. Relying heavily on algorithmic tools risks impeding the development of higher-order thinking. Most experienced nurses prioritize their higher-order thinking in decision-making but believe early warning tools can impede higher-order thinking. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Registered nurses participated as survey respondents.

The impact of mandated use early warning system tools on the development of nurses' higher-order thinking: A systematic review.

AIM: Ascertain the impact of mandated use of early warning systems (EWSs) on the development of registered nurses' higher-order thinking. DESIGN: A systematic literature review was conducted, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist (Page et al., 2021). DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Medline, Embase, PyscInfo. REVIEW METHODS: Eligible articles were quality appraised using the MMAT tool. Data extraction was conducted independently by four reviewers. Three investigators thematically analysed the data. RESULTS: Our review found that EWSs can support or suppress the development of nurses' higher-order thinking. EWS supports the development of higher-order thinking in two ways; by confirming nurses' subjective clinical assessment of patients and/or by providing a rationale for the escalation of care. Of note, more experienced nurses expressed their view that junior nurses are inhibited from developing effective higher-order thinking due to reliance on the tool. CONCLUSION: EWSs facilitate early identification of clinical deterioration in hospitalised patients. The impact of EWSs on the development of nurses' higher-order thinking is under-explored. We found that EWSs can support and suppress nurses' higher-order thinking. EWS as a supportive factor reinforces the development of nurses' heuristics, the mental shortcuts experienced clinicians call on when interpreting their subjective clinical assessment of patients. Conversely, EWS as a suppressive factor inhibits the development of nurses' higher-order thinking and heuristics, restricting the development of muscle memory regarding similar presentations they may encounter in the future. Clinicians' ability to refine and expand on their catalogue of heuristics is important as it endorses the future provision of safe and effective care for patients who present with similar physiological signs and symptoms. IMPACT: This research impacts health services and education providers as EWS and nurses' development of higher-order thinking skills are essential aspects of delivering safe, quality care. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This is a systematic review, and therefore, comprises no contribution from patients or the public.

Indicators of patient deterioration in poorly resourced private hospitals: Which vital sign to watch? A retrospective case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Patient vital signs are a measure of wellness if monitored regularly and accurately. Staff shortages in poorly resourced regional hospitals often result in inadequate patient monitoring, putting patients at risk of undetected deterioration. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the pattern and completeness of vital sign monitoring and the contribution of each vital sign in predicting clinical deterioration events in resource-poor regional/rural hospitals. METHOD: Using a retrospective case-control study design, we compared 24 h of vital sign data from deteriorating and nondeteriorating patients from two poorly-resourced regional hospitals. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, and analysis of variance are used to compare patient-monitoring frequency and completeness. The contribution of each vital sign in predicting patient deterioration was determined using the Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve and binary logistical regression analysis. RESULTS: Deteriorating patients were monitored more frequently (9.58 [7.02] times) in the 24-h period than nondeteriorating patients (4.93 [2.66] times). However, the completeness of vital sign documentation was higher in nondeteriorating (85.2%) than in deteriorating patients (57.7%). Body temperature was the most frequently omitted vital sign. Patient deterioration was positively linked to the frequency of abnormal vital signs and the number of abnormal vital signs per set (Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve: 0.872 and 0.867, respectively). No single vital sign strongly predicts patient outcomes. However, a supplementary oxygen value of >3 L/min and a heart rate of >139 beats/min were the best predictors of patient deterioration. CONCLUSION: Given the poor resourcing and often geographical remoteness of small regional hospitals, it is prudent that the nursing staff are made aware of the vital signs that best indicate deterioration for the cohort of patients in their care. Tachycardic patients on supplementary oxygen are at high risk of deterioration.

Patient Deterioration in Australian Regional and Rural Hospitals: Is the Queensland Adult Deterioration Detection System the Criterion Standard?

OBJECTIVE: This study compares the efficiency of six early warning systems (EWSs) to determine whether the EWS used in most public hospitals in Queensland, Australia, The Queensland Adult Deterioration Detection System (Q-ADDS), is best suited for use in small regional and rural hospitals. METHOD: In this retrospective case-control study, patients who experienced an in-hospital severe adverse event (index patients) for a 3.5-year period were demographically and diagnostically matched with patients who had uneventful hospital stays (control patients). The EWS efficiency was based on the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) and the number of false and true alerts generated by each EWS. RESULT: The incidence of severe adverse events was 1.2% of in-hospital patients, and 2500 sets of vital signs were collected from 159 index and 172 control patients. The EWSs were only able to identify approximately half of the index patients. The AUROC was 0.666 to 0.801 and the EWS generated 2.4 to 7.6 false alerts to every true alert per 1000 admissions. The National Early Warning Score had the best ratio of false to true alerts (2.4:1) but was only able to identify 40.8% of deteriorating patients. The Q-ADDS identified 46.5% of the deteriorating patients and had a false to true alert ratio of 3.2:1. When compared with the National Early Warning Score, systems with higher AUROCs (0.744 and 0.801) also had higher proportion of false alerts. None of the alternative EWSs seem to provide marked benefits over Q-ADDS. CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is insufficient evidence to replace Q-ADDS with an alternative EWS. Because the EWSs were only able to identify half of the deteriorating patients, EWSs should be used in conjunction with good clinical judgment.

The efficacy of twelve early warning systems for potential use in regional medical facilities in Queensland, Australia.

AIM: Early warning system (EWS) validation studies are conducted predominantly in tertiary metropolitan facilities and are not necessarily applicable to regional hospitals. This study evaluates 12 EWSs for use in regional subcritical hospitals. METHOD: This is a retrospective case-control study of patients who experienced severe adverse events (SAEs) in two regional private hospitals. Vital signs collected over 72 h preceding the SAE were applied to 12 EWSs representing three classes of EWSs. The EWS area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, and number of alerts were calculated. RESULTS: Data from 159 index and 172 control patients showed no significant differences in demographics, length of stay, and level of comorbidities. Only half of index patients achieved a medical emergency alert threshold score. On average, index patients triggered alerts 20.06 (22.67) hours preceding the SAE and alerted 2.25 (3.87) times over 72 h. The AUROC ranged from 0.628 to 0.747, with a single-parameter EWS having the lowest AUROC and an aggregated weighted EWS, the highest. The sensitivity of the EWS ranges from 0.359 to 0.692. The specificity was greater than 0.9 for all the EWSs tested. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the EWS sensitivity and AUROC, there is a lack of conclusive evidence of the efficacy of the 12 EWSs tested. However, because the adoption of the EWS in Australian hospitals is mandatory, the implementation of an aggregated weighted EWS, such as Compass, should be considered in subcritical regional private hospitals. Given that only half of SAE achieved an EWS medical alert threshold score, it is important that good clinical judgement be used with EWS.

Scoping review: The use of early warning systems for the identification of in-hospital patients at risk of deterioration.

INTRODUCTION: Early warning systems (EWS) were developed as a means of alerting medical staff to patient clinical decline. Since 85% of severe adverse events are preceded by abnormal physiological signs, the patient bed-side vital signs observation chart has emerged as an EWS tool to help staff identify and quantify deteriorating patients. There are three broad categories of patient observation chart EWS: single or multiple parameter systems; aggregated weighted scoring systems; or combinations of single or multiple parameter and aggregated weighted scoring systems. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review is an overview of quantitative studies and systematic reviews examining the efficiency of the adult EWS charts in the recognition of in-hospital patient deterioration. METHOD: A broad search was undertaken of peer-reviewed publications, official government websites and databases housing research theses, using combinations of keywords and phrases. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL with full text; MedLine, PsycINFO, MasterFILE Premier, GreenFILE and ScienceDirect. Also, the Cochrane Library database, Department of Health government websites and Ethos, ProQuest and Trove databases were searched. EXCLUSIONS: Paediatric, obstetric and intensive care studies, studies undertaken at the point of hospital admission or pre-admission, non-English publications and editorials. RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty five publications, government documents, reports and theses were located of which 91 were considered and 21 were included in the scoping review. Of the 21 publications eight studies compared the efficacy of various EWS and 13 publications validated specific EWS. CONCLUSIONS: There is low level quantitative evidence that EWS improve patient outcomes and strong anecdotal evidence that they augment the ability of the clinical staff to recognise and respond to patient decline, thus reducing the incidence of severe adverse events. Although aggregated weighted scoring systems are most frequently used, the efficiency of the specific EWS appears to be dependent on the patient cohort, facilities available and staff training and attitude. While the review demonstrates support for EWS, researchers caution that given the contribution of human factors to the EWS decision-making process, patient EWS charts alone cannot replace good clinical judgment.