Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38733070›Full record

ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2025

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

Marie Danielle Le Lagadec, Deb Massey, Amy-Louise Byrne, Justine Connor, Tracy Flenady

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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.

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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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.

Marie Danielle Le LagadecSchool of Nursing Midwifery and Social Sciences, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0114-8552
Deb MasseyEdith Cowan University, Joondalup, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0466-1960
Amy-Louise ByrneSchool of Nursing Midwifery and Social Sciences, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8679-8310
Justine ConnorSchool of Nursing Midwifery and Social Sciences, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0684-3597
Tracy FlenadySchool of Nursing Midwifery and Social Sciences, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5286-4789

Funding

CQUniversity Internal Grant RHS6503
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo 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.

designA concurrent mixed methods study design.

methodUsing 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.

resultsMost 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.

conclusionAlthough 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.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEarly Warning ScoreNursing Staff, HospitalThinkingVital SignsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairescritical thinkingdecision‐making toolsearly warning systemhigher‐order thinkingnurses

Identifiers

PMID38733070
PMCPMC12371781

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.