Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36254295›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2022

Workload involved in vital signs-based monitoring & responding to deteriorating patients: A single site experience from a regional New Zealand hospital.

Ehsan Ullah, Jonathan Albrett, Orooj Khan, Claudia Matthews, Ian Perry, Hamid GholamHosseini, Jun Lu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ehsan UllahSchool of Science, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
Jonathan AlbrettTaranaki District Health Board, Private Bag 2016, New Plymouth 4342, New Zealand.
Orooj KhanTaranaki District Health Board, Private Bag 2016, New Plymouth 4342, New Zealand.
Claudia MatthewsTaranaki District Health Board, Private Bag 2016, New Plymouth 4342, New Zealand.
Ian PerryTaranaki District Health Board, Private Bag 2016, New Plymouth 4342, New Zealand.
Hamid GholamHosseiniSchool of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
Jun LuSchool of Science, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
Taranaki Base Hospital · NZAuckland University of Technology · NZNanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to quantify the workload involved in patient monitoring by vital signs and early warning scores (EWS), and the time spent by a rapid response team locally known as the Patient-at-Risk (PaR) team in responding to deteriorating patients. Methods: The workload involved in the measurement and the documentation of vital signs and EWS was quantified by time and motion study using electronic stopwatch application in 167 complete sets of vital signs observations taken by nursing staff on general hospital wards at Taranaki Base Hospital, New Plymouth, New Zealand. The workload involved in responding to deteriorating patients was measured by the PaR team in real-time and recorded in an electronic logbook specifically designed for this purpose. Dependent variables were studied using analysis of variance (ANOVA), post hoc Tukey, Kruskal Wallis test, Mann-Whitney test and correlation tests. Results: The mean time to measure and record a complete set of vital signs including interruptions was 4:18 (95% CI: 4:07-4:28) minutes. After excluding interruptions, the mean time taken to measure and record a set of vital signs was 3:24 (95% CI: 3:15-3:33) minutes. We found no statistical difference between the observer, location of the patient, staff characteristics or experience and patient characteristics. PaR nurses' mean time to provide rapid response was 47:36 (95% CI: 44:57-50:15) minutes. Significantly more time was spent on patients having severe degrees of deterioration (higher EWS) Conclusions: Patient monitoring and response to deterioration consumed considerable time. Time spent in monitoring was not affected by independent and random factors studied; however, time spent on the response was greater when patients had higher degrees of deterioration.

Indexed as

Early warning scoreEscalation of carePatient deteriorationPatient monitoringRapid response systemVital signsWorkload

Identifiers

PMID36254295
PMCPMC9568824
OpenAlexW4302287503

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.