ArticlePediatric quality & safety
A Quality Improvement Project to Promote Interdisciplinary Communication Using the Pediatric Early Warning System.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In August 2020, residents and nurses lacked awareness and knowledge of the pediatric early warning system (PEWS). Residents and nurses infrequently performed interdisciplinary bedside huddles for patients with critical scores, and residents did not document assessments and plans despite these patients being at higher risk for clinical deterioration. We aimed to increase the mean rate of documented huddles from 0% to 50% within 4 months. Methods: We piloted this quality improvement project on 1 floor of a pediatric hospital and included patients admitted to the pediatric hospital medicine service. Key drivers included buy-in and trust in PEWS, understanding of critical scores, a reliable scoring algorithm, and a culture where interdisciplinary communication is routine. Interventions included physician and nurse education, improving the scoring algorithm, and promoting a shared understanding of PEWS. Our outcome measure was the percentage of documented huddle notes for each patient with a critical score, a proxy for huddles occurring. We entered data into a control chart and analyzed it for changes in response to interventions. Results: The mean baseline rate of note completion was 0%. After 4 months, the mean increased to 100%, associated with multiple educational interventions and efforts to improve the scoring algorithm. Conclusions: Implementing multimodal interventions was associated with an increased rate of documented huddles. Scoring algorithm changes and personalized education galvanized physician and nurse support for PEWS. Institutions can use the lessons we have learned to implement PEWS and promote huddles and interdisciplinary communication.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.