Observational studyMedicine2026
Integration of real-time patient vital signs into an electronic transport checklist to improve clinical decision-making and checklist responsiveness.
Observational study in Medicine, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate whether integrating real-time vital signs into an electronic intrahospital transport checklist improves abnormal vital sign recognition time, clinical intervention response time, checklist completion efficiency, and transport-related safety outcomes. This prospective, before-and-after (quasi-experimental) observational study was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital between January 2023 and December 2024. Adult patients requiring intrahospital transport with continuous physiological monitoring were included. Patients transported before June 2023 were managed using a conventional paper-based checklist, while those transported after implementation were managed using an electronic checklist integrated with real-time vital sign monitoring. Primary outcomes included abnormal vital sign recognition time, clinical intervention response time, and checklist completion time. Secondary outcomes included transport-related adverse events, checklist completion rate, and staff satisfaction. A total of 102 patients were included (49 conventional checklist group, 53 electronic checklist group). Baseline characteristics, including illness severity and transport complexity, were comparable between groups. The electronic checklist group demonstrated significantly shorter abnormal vital sign recognition time (16.9 ± 7.3 vs 34.6 ± 11.8 seconds, P < .001), faster clinical intervention response time (61.3 ± 21.7 vs 88.7 ± 26.4 seconds, P < .001), and reduced checklist completion time (97.2 ± 27.8 vs 126.4 ± 32.5 seconds, P < .001). Transport-related adverse events occurred less frequently in the electronic checklist group (9.4% vs 16.3%), although this difference was not statistically significant (P = .38). Staff satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the electronic checklist group (4.3 ± 0.6 vs 3.5 ± 0.8, P < .001). Integration of real-time vital signs into an electronic intrahospital transport checklist was associated with improved clinical responsiveness, faster intervention, and enhanced workflow efficiency. Given the before-and-after design, mixed timing methods, and limited power for safety endpoints, these findings should be interpreted as process-improvement associations rather than definitive causal evidence. Larger multicenter studies are needed to confirm whether these improvements translate into significant reductions in transport-related adverse events.
Indexed as
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.