ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2025
[Modified Delphi study about implementation of early warning scores].
Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly warning scores (EWS) are considered an effective tool for the early detection of clinical deterioration in hospital settings. However, their implementation poses complex demands on institutional structures, processes, and culture.
methodsAs part of a modified Delphi study, experts from the Initiative Qualitätsmedizin network with practical experience in EWS implementation were invited to identify necessary structures, processes, and common pitfalls across the project phases of preparation, implementation, evaluation, and anchoring. In three rounds, recommendations were collected, thematically clustered, and rated (0-10, 10 = maximally relevant). Finally, the recommendations were consolidated in a consensus meeting.
resultsEight participants completed all rounds. From 505 responses, 51 consolidated recommendations were identified, all considered as highly relevant (≥ 7 points) in the various rounds. Top priorities were the training of all professional groups (mean 9.3) and transparent communication of results and actions (mean 9.0). Common barriers included lack of information technology (IT) integration, unclear responsibilities, and insufficient feedback. Key success factors were interdisciplinary project teams, early evaluation, and embedding into clinical routines.
conclusionThe consensus-based recommendations can support decision-makers in the systematic implementation of EWS. Structured project planning, interprofessional training, and continuous feedback are key success factors. For sustainable integration, EWS should be embedded into quality systems, continuing education, and clinical routines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41034594What 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.