Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27067076›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2017

Factors related to monitoring during admission of acute patients.

Thomas Schmidt, Camilla N Bech, Mikkel Brabrand, Uffe Kock Wiil, Annmarie Lassen

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03375658 (Cluster Randomized Trial of the Patient Deterioration Warning System in Emergency Departments), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03375658 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Cluster Randomized Trial of the Patient Deterioration Warning System in Emergency Departments

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Southern DenmarkRan2018 to 2021Enrolled6,500ConditionsPatient Transfer to Intensive Care Unit (Procedure), Respiratory Arrest (Disorder), Cardiac Arrest (Disorder), Patient Died in Hospital (Finding)ArmsPDWS Intervension
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Thomas SchmidtThe Maersk Mc-Kinney Moeller Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense, Denmark. schmidt@mmmi.sdu.dk.
Camilla N BechDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Mikkel BrabrandDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Uffe Kock WiilThe Maersk Mc-Kinney Moeller Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense, Denmark.
Annmarie LassenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the use of patient monitoring systems in emergency and acute facilities may help to identify reasons for failure to identify risk patients in these settings. Hence, we investigate factors related to the utilization of automated monitoring for patients admitted to an acute admission unit by introducing monitor load as the proportion between monitored time and length of stay. A cohort study of patients admitted and registered to patient monitors in the period from 10/10/2013 to 1/10/2014 at the acute admission unit of Odense University Hospital in Denmark. Admissions with at least one measurement were analyzed using quantile regression by looking at the impact of distance from nursing office, number of concurrent patients, wing type (medical/surgical), age, sex, comorbidities, and severity conditioned on how much patients were monitored during their admissions. We registered 11,848 admissions, of which we were able to link patient monitor readings to 3149 (26.6 %) with 50 % being monitored <1.4 % of total admission time. Distance from nursing office had little influence on patients monitored <10 % of their admission time. But for other patients, being positioned further away from the office reduced the level of monitoring. Higher levels of severity were related to higher degrees of monitoring, but being admitted to the surgical wing reduce how much patients were monitored, and periods with many concurrent patients lead to a small increase in monitoring. We found a significant variation concerning how much patients were monitored during admission to an acute admission unit. Our results point to potential patient safety improvements in clinical procedures, and advocate an awareness of how patient monitoring systems are utilized.

Indexed as

Critical CareCritical Care NursingCritical IllnessDenmarkEmergency Medical ServicesFemaleHospitals, UniversityHumansMaleMonitoring, PhysiologicNursing AssessmentPatient AdmissionPrevalenceRisk FactorsUtilization ReviewComputerized decision supportEmergency departmentsPatient monitoring

Identifiers

PMID27067076
PMCPMC5403848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.