ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2025
[Early warning scores: implementation, challenges and solutions within the initiative of quality in medicine].
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn hospitalised patients, clinical deterioration can be detected at an early stage using early warning scores (EWS), enabling timely interventions. However, it remains unclear to what extent EWS have been implemented within the network of the Initiative of Quality in Medicine (IQM), comprising 480 hospitals, and what facilitating and challenging factors have been reported in this context.
methodsAn online survey within the IQM was conducted to assess EWS-specific structures and processes, barriers, and facilitators. The degree of implementation was self-rated by participants on a numerical rating scale from 1 to 10 (10 = maximum).
resultsOf the 480 individuals contacted, 18.7% (n = 90) responded; 6.3% (n = 30) reported using EWS in clinical practice for an average of 4.3 years. Among these, the National-EWS (NEWS) was most frequently used (37.9%, n = 11), primarily on general medical wards (66.7%, n = 20). Rapid response teams were mostly formed by resuscitation teams (33.3%, n = 10). Electronic systems were used for EWS recording in 82.2% (n = 24), and documentation was most often performed in response to clinical abnormalities (56.7%, n = 17). The self-rated median implementation score was 3.5. The top three facilitating factors included committed staff, clear communication and training strategies, and technological support; barriers identified were lack of staff acceptance, insufficient technical infrastructure, and time required for training.
conclusionThe implementation of EWS within the IQM appears to be limited and might be a challenging and complex process. The low participation rate limits the informative value of this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41165764What 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.