Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39201955›Full record

ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Postoperative Recovery in the Youngest: Beyond Technology.

Carina Sjöberg, Mona Ringdal, Pether Jildenstål

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Carina SjöbergDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences, Lund University, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9877-7357
Mona RingdalInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, 413 46 Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3984-6906
Pether JildenstålDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences, Lund University, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7518-8915

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasuring and interpreting vital signs in pediatric patients recovering from anaesthesia, particularly those up to 36 months old, is challenging. Nurses' decision-making regarding the level of monitoring must balance patient safety with individualized care. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of critical care nurses and registered nurse anesthetists regarding their experiences and actions when making decisions about vital sign monitoring for children in post-anesthesia care units (PACUs).

methodsA qualitative study utilizing the critical incident technique was conducted. Interviews were performed with a purposeful sample of 17 critical care nurses and registered nurse anaesthetists from two hospitals.

resultsNurses reported that the rationale for decisions concerning the need for vital sign monitoring in children was both adequate and inadequate. Actions were taken to adjust the monitoring of vital signs, optimizing conditions for assessment and ensuring the child's safe recovery.

conclusionsThe complexity of accurately monitoring children makes it challenging for nurses in the PACU to adhere to guidelines. Evidence-based care and safety are compromised when technology has limitations and is not adapted for paediatric use, leading to a greater reliance on experience and clinical assessment. This reliance on experience is crucial for reliable assessment but also entails accepting greater risks.

Indexed as

clinical nursing researchpaediatricspatient safetypostoperative carevital signs

Identifiers

PMID39201955
PMCPMC11353086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.