Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39449442›Full record

ReviewNursing reports (Pavia, Italy)2024

A Comparison among Score Systems for Discharging Patients from Recovery Rooms: A Narrative Review.

Khadija El Aoufy, Carolina Forciniti, Yari Longobucco, Alberto Lucchini, Ilaria Mangli, Camilla Elena Magi, Enrico Bulleri, Cristian Fusi, Paolo Iovino, Pasquale Iozzo and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors.

Khadija El AoufyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Carolina ForcinitiMedical and Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Careggi University Hospital, 50134 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0009-0003-4586-0696
Yari LongobuccoDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2703-9349
Alberto LucchiniUOS Terapia Intensiva Generale e UOSD Emergenza Intraospedaliera e Trauma Team, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7475-277X
Ilaria MangliUrological Ward, Careggi University Hospital, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Camilla Elena MagiDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0009-0007-5599-2405
Enrico BulleriIntensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), CH-6500 Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0009-4202-1946
Cristian FusiIntensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), CH-6500 Lugano, Switzerland.
Paolo IovinoDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Pasquale IozzoEmergency Department, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Policlinico Paolo Giaccone, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Nicoletta RizzatoOperating Room, Bellaria Hospital, AUSL Bologna, 40139 Bologna, Italy.
Laura RaseroDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Stefano BambiDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0360-4470

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe recovery room (RR) is a hospital area where patients are monitored in the early postoperative period before being transferred to the surgical ward or other specialized units. The utilization of scores in the RR context facilitates the assignment of patients to the appropriate ward and directs necessary monitoring. Some scoring systems allow nurses to select patients who can be discharged directly to their homes. AIM AND

methodsThe aim of this narrative review was to describe and compare the scoring systems employed to discharge postoperative patients from RR, with a focus on item characteristics.

resultsNine scoring systems were identified and discussed: the "Aldrete Score System" and its modified version, the "Respiration, Energy, Alertness, Circulation, Temperature Score", the "Post Anesthetic Discharge Scoring System", the "White and Song Score", the "Readiness for Discharge Assessment Tool", the "Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine Service Checklist", the "Post-Anesthetic Care Tool", the "Post-operative Quality Recovery Scale", and the "Discerning Post Anesthesia Readiness for Transition" instrument. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsTo obtain a comprehensive overview, the items included in the scoring systems were compared. Despite the availability of guidelines for patients' discharge readiness from the RR, there is no universally recommended scoring system. Next-generation scores must be improved to ease their use, minimize errors, and increase safety. The main goals of the scores included in this narrative review were to be simple to use, feasible, intuitive, comprehensive, and flexible. However, these goals frequently conflict because patient assessment takes time, and a smart and comprehensive score may not consider some clinical parameters that may be crucial for the discharge decision. Therefore, further research should be conducted on this topic.

Indexed as

dischargepatient safetypost-anesthesia care unitpostoperative patientrecovery roomscore systemvital signs

Identifiers

PMID39449442
PMCPMC11503295

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.