Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41034594›Full record

ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2025

[Modified Delphi study about implementation of early warning scores].

Peter Nydahl, Florian Grossmann, Vanessa Franke, Marie-Madlen Jeitziner, Susanne Krotsetis, Koroush Kabir, Reto Lingenhag, Tobias Melms, Felix Jakob Neuenfeldt, Dominika Oroszy and 2 more

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Peter NydahlPflegewissenschaft und -entwicklung, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Haus V40, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, 24105, Kiel, Deutschland. Peter.Nydahl@uksh.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5178-0364
Florian GrossmannDepartement Akutmedizin, Universitätsspital Basel, Basel, Schweiz.
Vanessa FrankePflegewissenschaft und Praxisentwicklung, Universitätsmedizin Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
Marie-Madlen JeitzinerDirektion Pflege, Universitätsspital Bern (Inselspital), Universität Bern, Bern, Schweiz.
Susanne KrotsetisPflegewissenschaft und -entwicklung, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Deutschland.
Koroush KabirKlinik für Unfallchirurgie, Orthopädie und Sportmedizin, Helios Universitätsklinikum Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Deutschland.
Reto LingenhagQualitätsmanagement, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Winterthur, Schweiz.
Tobias MelmsPflegequalitätsentwicklung, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Deutschland.
Felix Jakob NeuenfeldtInstitut für Rettungs- und Notfallmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Deutschland.
Dominika OroszyQualitätsabteilung, Universitätsklinikum Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slowenien.
Frida RegnerUniversitäts Kinder- und Frauenzentrum, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
Jan-Peter BraunKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin und Schmerztherapie, Martin Luther Krankenhaus, Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Consensus methodHospitalImplementationPatient safetyVital signs

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.