Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33812297›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies2021

How long do nursing staff take to measure and record patients' vital signs observations in hospital? A time-and-motion study.

Chiara Dall'Ora, Peter Griffiths, Joanna Hope, Jim Briggs, Jones Jeremy, Stephen Gerry, Oliver C Redfern

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Noncontact Sensors for Vital Signs Measurement: A Narrative Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Chiara Dall'OraSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom; Applied Research Collaboration Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. Electronic address: C.Dallora@soton.ac.uk.
Peter GriffithsSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom; Applied Research Collaboration Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States. Electronic address: peter.griffiths@soton.ac.uk.
Joanna HopeSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom; Applied Research Collaboration Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. Electronic address: J.L.Hope@soton.ac.uk.
Jim BriggsCentre for Healthcare Modelling and Informatics, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Jeremy.Jones@soton.ac.uk.
Jones JeremySchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom. Electronic address: eremy.jones@soton.ac.uk.
Stephen GerryCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. Electronic address: stephen.gerry@csm.ox.ac.uk.
Oliver C RedfernCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. Electronic address: oliver.redfern@ndcn.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMonitoring vital signs in hospital is an important part of safe patient care. However, there are no robust estimates of the workload it generates for nursing staff. This makes it difficult to plan adequate staffing to ensure current monitoring protocols can be delivered.

objectiveTo estimate the time taken to measure and record one set of patient's vital signs; and to identify factors associated with the time required to measure and record one set of patient's vital signs.

methodsWe undertook a time-and-motion study of 16 acute medical or surgical wards across four hospitals in England. Two trained observers followed a standard operating procedure to record the time taken to measure and record vital signs. We used mixed-effects models to estimate the mean time using whole vital signs rounds, which included equipment preparation, time spent taking vital signs at the bedside, vital signs documentation, and equipment storing. We tested whether our estimates were influenced by nurse, ward and hospital factors.

resultsAfter excluding non-vital signs related interruptions, dividing the length of a vital signs round by the number of vital signs assessments in that round yielded an estimated time per vital signs set of 5 min and 1 second (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 4:39-5:24). If interruptions within the round were included, the estimated time was 6:26 (95% CI = 6:01-6:50). If only time taking each patient's vital signs at the bedside was considered, after excluding non-vital signs related interruptions, the estimated time was 3:45 (95% CI = 3:32-3:58). We found no substantial differences by hospital, ward or nurse characteristics, despite different systems for recording vital signs being used across the hospitals. DISCUSSION: The time taken to observe and record a patient's vital signs is considerable, so changes to recommended assessment frequency could have major workload implications. Variation in estimates derived from previous studies may, in part, arise from a lack of clarity about what was included in the reported times. We found no evidence that nurses save time when using electronic vital signs recording, or that the grade of staff measuring the vital signs influenced the time taken.

conclusionsMeasuring and recording vital signs is time consuming and the impact of interruptions and preparation away from the bedside is considerable. When considering the nursing workload around vital signs assessment, no assumption of relative efficiency should be made if different technologies or staff groups are deployed.

Indexed as

Nursing Staff, HospitalEnglandHospitalsHumansTime and Motion StudiesVital SignsMonitoring and surveillanceNursingObservationTime-and-motionVital signsWorkload

Identifiers

PMID33812297
PMCPMC8249906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.