Dataset Information

Impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the patterns of vital signs recording and staff compliance with expected monitoring schedules on general wards.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) placed increased burdens on National Health Service hospitals and necessitated significant adjustments to their structures and processes. This research investigated if and how these changes affected the patterns of vital sign recording and staff compliance with expected monitoring schedules on general wards.

Methods

We compared the pattern of vital signs and early warning score (EWS) data collected from admissions to a single hospital during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with those in three control periods from 2018, 2019 and 2020. Main outcome measures were weekly and monthly hospital admissions; daily and hourly patterns of recorded vital signs and EWS values; time to next observation and; proportions of 'on time', 'late' and 'missed' vital signs observations sets.

Results

There were large falls in admissions at the beginning of the COVID-19 era. Admissions were older, more unwell on admission and throughout their stay, more often required supplementary oxygen, spent longer in hospital and had a higher in-hospital mortality compared to one or more of the control periods. More daily observation sets were performed during the COVID-19 era than in the control periods. However, there was no clear evidence that COVID-19 affected the pattern of vital signs collection across the 24-h period or the week.

Conclusions

The increased burdens of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the alterations in healthcare structures and processes necessary to respond to it, did not adversely affect the hospitals' ability to monitor patients under its care and to comply with expected monitoring schedules.

SUBMITTER: Kostakis I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7676313 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the patterns of vital signs recording and staff compliance with expected monitoring schedules on general wards.

Kostakis Ina I Smith Gary B GB Prytherch David D Meredith Paul P Price Connor C Chauhan Anoop A

Resuscitation 20201119

<h4>Introduction</h4>Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) placed increased burdens on National Health Service hospitals and necessitated significant adjustments to their structures and processes. This research investigated if and how these changes affected the patterns of vital sign recording and staff compliance with expected monitoring schedules on general wards.<h4>Methods</h4>We compared the pattern of vital signs and early warning score (EWS) data collected from admissions to a single hospit ...[more]

PMID: 33221355

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundContinuous monitoring of vital signs (CMVS) using wearable wireless sensors is increasingly available to patients in general wards and can improve outcomes and reduce nurse workload. To assess the potential impact of such systems, successful implementation is important. We developed a CMVS intervention and implementation strategy and evaluated its success in 2 general wards.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess and compare intervention fidelity in 2 wards (internal medicine and general surgery) of a large teaching hospital.MethodsA mixed methods sequential explanatory design was used. After thorough training and preparation, CMVS was implemented-in parallel with the standard intermittent manual measurements-and executed for 6 months in each ward. Heart rate and respiratory rate were measured using a chest-worn wearable sensor, and vital sign trends were visualized on a digital platform. Trends were routinely assessed and reported each nursing shift without automated alarms. The primary outcome was intervention fidelity, defined as the proportion of written reports and related nurse activities in case of deviating trends comparing early (months 1-2), mid- (months 3-4), and late (months 5-6) implementation periods. Explanatory interviews with nurses were conducted.ResultsThe implementation strategy was executed as planned. A total of 358 patients were included, resulting in 45,113 monitored hours during 6142 nurse shifts. In total, 10.3% (37/358) of the sensors were replaced prematurely because of technical failure. Mean intervention fidelity was 70.7% (SD 20.4%) and higher in the surgical ward (73.6%, SD 18.1% vs 64.1%, SD 23.7%; P<.001). Fidelity decreased over the implementation period in the internal medicine ward (76%, 57%, and 48% at early, mid-, and late implementation, respectively; P<.001) but not significantly in the surgical ward (76% at early implementation vs 74% at midimplementation [P=.56] vs 70.7% at late implementation [P=.07]). No nursing activities were needed based on vital sign trends for 68.7% (246/358) of the patients. In 174 reports of 31.3% (112/358) of the patients, observed deviating trends led to 101 additional bedside assessments of patients and 73 consultations by physicians. The main themes that emerged during interviews (n=21) included the relative priority of CMVS in nurse work, the importance of nursing assessment, the relatively limited perceived benefits for patient care, and experienced mediocre usability of the technology.ConclusionsWe successfully implemented a system for CMVS at scale in 2 hospital wards, but our results show that intervention fidelity decreased over time, more in the internal medicine ward than in the surgical ward. This decrease appeared to depend on multiple ward-specific factors. Nurses' perceptions regarding the value and benefits of the intervention varied. Implications for optimal implementation of CMVS include engaging nurses early, seamless integration into electronic health records, and sophisticated decision support tools for vital sign trend interpretation.

Project description:BackgroundWearable devices can be used for continuous patient monitoring in the general ward, increasing patient safety. Little is known about the experiences and expectations of patients and health care professionals regarding continuous monitoring with these devices.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify positive and negative effects as well as barriers and facilitators for the use of two wearable devices: ViSi Mobile (VM) and HealthPatch (HP).MethodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 90 patients admitted to the internal medicine and surgical wards of a university hospital in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to continuous vital sign monitoring using VM or HP and a control group. Users' experiences and expectations were addressed using semistructured interviews. Nurses, physician assistants, and medical doctors were also interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Psychological distress was assessed using the State Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. The System Usability Scale was used to assess the usability of both devices.ResultsA total of 60 patients, 20 nurses, 3 physician assistants, and 6 medical doctors were interviewed. We identified 47 positive and 30 negative effects and 19 facilitators and 36 barriers for the use of VM and HP. Frequently mentioned topics included earlier identification of clinical deterioration, increased feelings of safety, and VM lines and electrodes. No differences related to psychological distress and usability were found between randomization groups or devices.ConclusionsBoth devices were well received by most patients and health care professionals, and the majority of them encouraged the idea of monitoring vital signs continuously in the general ward. This comprehensive overview of barriers and facilitators of using wireless devices may serve as a guide for future researchers, developers, and health care institutions that consider implementing continuous monitoring in the ward.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02933307; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02933307.

Project description:BackgroundVital signs monitoring is a universal tool for the detection of postoperative complications; however, unwell patients can be missed between traditional observation rounds. New remote monitoring technologies promise to convey the benefits of continuous monitoring to patients in general wards.ObjectiveThe aim of this pilot study was to evaluate whether continuous remote vital signs monitoring is a practical and acceptable way of monitoring surgical patients and to optimize the delivery of a definitive trial.MethodsWe performed a prospective, cluster-randomized, parallel-group, unblinded, controlled pilot study. Patients admitted to 2 surgical wards at a large tertiary hospital received either continuous and intermittent vital signs monitoring or intermittent monitoring alone using an early warning score system. Continuous monitoring was provided by a wireless patch, worn on the patient's chest, with data transmitted wirelessly every 2 minutes to a central monitoring station or a mobile device carried by the patient's nurse. The primary outcome measure was time to administration of antibiotics in sepsis. The secondary outcome measures included the length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission rate, mortality, and patient acceptability.ResultsOverall, 226 patients were randomized between January and June 2017. Of 226 patients, 140 were randomized to continuous remote monitoring and 86 to intermittent monitoring alone. On average, patients receiving continuous monitoring were administered antibiotics faster after evidence of sepsis (626 minutes, n=22, 95% CI 431.7-820.3 minutes vs 1012.8 minutes, n=12, 95% CI 425.0-1600.6 minutes), had a shorter average length of hospital stay (13.3 days, 95% CI 11.3-15.3 days vs 14.6 days, 95% CI 11.5-17.7 days), and were less likely to require readmission within 30 days of discharge (11.4%, 95% CI 6.16-16.7 vs 20.9%, 95% CI 12.3-29.5). Wide CIs suggest these differences are not statistically significant. Patients found the monitoring device to be acceptable in terms of comfort and perceived an enhanced sense of safety, despite 24% discontinuing the intervention early.ConclusionsRemote continuous vital signs monitoring on surgical wards is practical and acceptable to patients. Large, well-controlled studies in high-risk populations are required to determine whether the observed trends translate into a significant benefit for continuous over intermittent monitoring.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN60999823; http://www.isrctn.com /ISRCTN60999823 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73ikP6OQz).

Project description:IntroductionMonitoring vital signs in hospital is an important part of safe patient care. However, there are no robust estimates of the workload it generates for nursing staff. This makes it difficult to plan adequate staffing to ensure current monitoring protocols can be delivered.ObjectiveTo estimate the time taken to measure and record one set of patient's vital signs; and to identify factors associated with the time required to measure and record one set of patient's vital signs.MethodsWe undertook a time-and-motion study of 16 acute medical or surgical wards across four hospitals in England. Two trained observers followed a standard operating procedure to record the time taken to measure and record vital signs. We used mixed-effects models to estimate the mean time using whole vital signs rounds, which included equipment preparation, time spent taking vital signs at the bedside, vital signs documentation, and equipment storing. We tested whether our estimates were influenced by nurse, ward and hospital factors.ResultsAfter excluding non-vital signs related interruptions, dividing the length of a vital signs round by the number of vital signs assessments in that round yielded an estimated time per vital signs set of 5 min and 1 second (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 4:39-5:24). If interruptions within the round were included, the estimated time was 6:26 (95% CI = 6:01-6:50). If only time taking each patient's vital signs at the bedside was considered, after excluding non-vital signs related interruptions, the estimated time was 3:45 (95% CI = 3:32-3:58). We found no substantial differences by hospital, ward or nurse characteristics, despite different systems for recording vital signs being used across the hospitals.DiscussionThe time taken to observe and record a patient's vital signs is considerable, so changes to recommended assessment frequency could have major workload implications. Variation in estimates derived from previous studies may, in part, arise from a lack of clarity about what was included in the reported times. We found no evidence that nurses save time when using electronic vital signs recording, or that the grade of staff measuring the vital signs influenced the time taken.ConclusionsMeasuring and recording vital signs is time consuming and the impact of interruptions and preparation away from the bedside is considerable. When considering the nursing workload around vital signs assessment, no assumption of relative efficiency should be made if different technologies or staff groups are deployed.

Dataset Information

Impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the patterns of vital signs recording and staff compliance with expected monitoring schedules on general wards.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the patterns of vital signs recording and staff compliance with expected monitoring schedules on general wards.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets