Wireless patient monitoring and Efficacy Safety Score in postoperative treatment at the ward: evaluation of time consumption and usability.

To evaluate objective time consumption and how nurses perceived introducing wireless patient monitoring (WPM) and a validated score on patient quality and safety, the Efficacy Safety Score (ESS), at a mixed surgery ward. After fulfilling a randomised controlled trial combining the ESS and WPM, we addressed time consumption and conducted a questionnaire survey among nurses who participated in the study. The questionnaire appraised the nurses' evaluation of introducing these tools for postoperative management. Of 28 invited nurses, 24 responded to the questionnaire, and 92% reported the ESS and WPM-systems to increase patient safety and quality of care. 67% felt the intervention took extra time, but objective workload measurements revealed reduced time to 1/3 using ESS and WPM compared to standard manual assessment. Improved confidence when using the systems was reported by 83% and improved working situation by 75%. In a test situation to measure time consumption, the ESS and pre-attached WPM-systems require less time than the conventional standard of care, and may allow for more frequent clinical monitoring at the post-surgical ward. The combination of the ESS and the WPM systems was perceived as positive by participating nurses and further clinical development and research is warranted.

Postoperative quality and safety using Efficacy Safety Score (ESS) and a wireless patient monitoring system at the ward: A randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain, side-effects and time to mobilisation are indicators for the quality of postoperative recovery. The aim of this randomised controlled study was to investigate if efficacy safety score (ESS) combined with a wireless patient monitoring system would improve these clinical outcomes for patients at a general surgical ward. METHODS: The trial included 195 patients randomised to a standard care group (SC-Group) or intervention group (INT-Group) receiving continuous wireless monitoring of vital signs combined with ESS during the first 24 postoperative hours. The primary outcome was time to mobilisation. Secondary outcomes were average pain, doses of postoperative opioids, unscheduled interventions, side-effects, patient satisfaction and length of hospital stay (LOS). RESULTS: Mean time to postoperative mobilisation was 10.1 hours for patients in the INT-Group compared to 14.2 hours in the SC-Group; this corresponds to an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.04-2.28). INT-Group patients received a higher dose of oral morphine equivalents; 26 mg vs 15 mg, P < .001; reported lower intensity of pain on a 0-10 scale; 2.1 vs 3.3, P < .001; and had higher patient satisfaction on a 5-point scale; 4.9 vs 4.3, P < .001. The LOS was similar between the groups; 71 hours in INT-Group vs 77 hours in SC-Group, P = .58. No serious side-effects were registered in INT-Group, whereas two were registered in SC-Group. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing ESS as a decision tool combined with a wireless monitoring system resulted in less pain, increased satisfaction and more rapid mobilisation for patients in this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03438578.