Testing effectiveness of the revised Cape Town modified early warning and SBAR systems: a pilot pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial
| dc.contributor.author | Kyriacos, Una | |
| dc.contributor.author | Burger, Debora | |
| dc.contributor.author | Jordan, Sue | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-01-08T09:26:14Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-01-08T09:26:14Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019-12-30 | |
| dc.date.updated | 2020-01-05T04:13:48Z | |
| dc.description.abstract | Abstract Background Nurses’ recognition of clinical deterioration is crucial for patient survival. Evidence for the effectiveness of modified early warning scores (MEWS) is derived from large observation studies in developed countries. Methods We tested the effectiveness of the paper-based Cape Town (CT) MEWS vital signs observation chart and situation-background-assessment-recommendation (SBAR) communication guide. Outcomes were: proportion of appropriate responses to deterioration, differences in recording of clinical parameters and serious adverse events (SAEs) in intervention and control trial arms. Public teaching hospitals for adult patients in Cape Town were randomised to implementation of the CT MEWS/SBAR guide or usual care (observation chart without track-and-trigger information) for 31 days on general medical and surgical wards. Nurses in intervention wards received training, as they had no prior knowledge of early warning systems. Identification and reporting of patient deterioration in intervention and control wards were compared. In the intervention arm, 24 day-shift and 23 night-shift nurses received training. Clinical records were reviewed retrospectively at trial end. Only records of patients who had given signed consent were reviewed. Results We recruited two of six CT general hospitals. We consented 363 patients and analysed 292 (80.4%) patient records (n = 150, 51.4% intervention, n = 142, 48.6% control arm). Assistance was summoned for fewer patients with abnormal vital signs in the intervention arm (2/45, 4.4% versus (vs) 11/81, 13.6%, OR 0.29 (0.06–1.39)), particularly low systolic blood pressure. There was a significant difference in recording between trial arms for parameters listed on the MEWS chart but omitted from the standard observations chart: oxygen saturation, level of consciousness, pallor/cyanosis, pain, sweating, wound oozing, pedal pulses, glucose concentration, haemoglobin concentration, and “looks unwell”. SBAR was used twice. There was no statistically significant difference in SAEs (5/150, 3.3% vs 3/143, 2.1% P = 0.72, OR 1.61 (0.38–6.86)). Conclusions The revised CT MEWS observations chart improved recording of certain parameters, but did not improve nurses’ ability to identify early signs of clinical deterioration and to summon assistance. Recruitment of only two hospitals and exclusion of patients too ill to consent limits generalisation of results. Further work is needed on educational preparation for the CT MEWS/SBAR and its impact on nurses’ reporting behaviour. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR201406000838118. Registered on 2 June 2014, www.pactr.org. | |
| dc.identifier.apacitation | Kyriacos, U., Burger, D., & Jordan, S. (2019). Testing effectiveness of the revised Cape Town modified early warning and SBAR systems: a pilot pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/30715 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.chicagocitation | Kyriacos, Una, Debora Burger, and Sue Jordan "Testing effectiveness of the revised Cape Town modified early warning and SBAR systems: a pilot pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial." (2019) http://hdl.handle.net/11427/30715 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.citation | Trials. 2019 Dec 30;20(1):809 | |
| dc.identifier.ris | TY - Journal Article AU - Kyriacos, Una AU - Burger, Debora AU - Jordan, Sue AB - Abstract Background Nurses’ recognition of clinical deterioration is crucial for patient survival. Evidence for the effectiveness of modified early warning scores (MEWS) is derived from large observation studies in developed countries. Methods We tested the effectiveness of the paper-based Cape Town (CT) MEWS vital signs observation chart and situation-background-assessment-recommendation (SBAR) communication guide. Outcomes were: proportion of appropriate responses to deterioration, differences in recording of clinical parameters and serious adverse events (SAEs) in intervention and control trial arms. Public teaching hospitals for adult patients in Cape Town were randomised to implementation of the CT MEWS/SBAR guide or usual care (observation chart without track-and-trigger information) for 31 days on general medical and surgical wards. Nurses in intervention wards received training, as they had no prior knowledge of early warning systems. Identification and reporting of patient deterioration in intervention and control wards were compared. In the intervention arm, 24 day-shift and 23 night-shift nurses received training. Clinical records were reviewed retrospectively at trial end. Only records of patients who had given signed consent were reviewed. Results We recruited two of six CT general hospitals. We consented 363 patients and analysed 292 (80.4%) patient records (n = 150, 51.4% intervention, n = 142, 48.6% control arm). Assistance was summoned for fewer patients with abnormal vital signs in the intervention arm (2/45, 4.4% versus (vs) 11/81, 13.6%, OR 0.29 (0.06–1.39)), particularly low systolic blood pressure. There was a significant difference in recording between trial arms for parameters listed on the MEWS chart but omitted from the standard observations chart: oxygen saturation, level of consciousness, pallor/cyanosis, pain, sweating, wound oozing, pedal pulses, glucose concentration, haemoglobin concentration, and “looks unwell”. SBAR was used twice. There was no statistically significant difference in SAEs (5/150, 3.3% vs 3/143, 2.1% P = 0.72, OR 1.61 (0.38–6.86)). Conclusions The revised CT MEWS observations chart improved recording of certain parameters, but did not improve nurses’ ability to identify early signs of clinical deterioration and to summon assistance. Recruitment of only two hospitals and exclusion of patients too ill to consent limits generalisation of results. Further work is needed on educational preparation for the CT MEWS/SBAR and its impact on nurses’ reporting behaviour. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR201406000838118. Registered on 2 June 2014, www.pactr.org. DA - 2019-12-30 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town KW - Early warning score KW - Decision making KW - Healthcare systems KW - Nurse training (MESH terms: early diagnosis, monitoring – physiologic/nursing, vital signs) LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PY - 2019 T1 - Testing effectiveness of the revised Cape Town modified early warning and SBAR systems: a pilot pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial TI - Testing effectiveness of the revised Cape Town modified early warning and SBAR systems: a pilot pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/30715 ER - | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3916-0 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11427/30715 | |
| dc.identifier.vancouvercitation | Kyriacos U, Burger D, Jordan S. Testing effectiveness of the revised Cape Town modified early warning and SBAR systems: a pilot pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial. 2019; http://hdl.handle.net/11427/30715. | en_ZA |
| dc.language.rfc3066 | en | |
| dc.rights.holder | The Author(s). | |
| dc.subject | Early warning score | |
| dc.subject | Decision making | |
| dc.subject | Healthcare systems | |
| dc.subject | Nurse training (MESH terms: early diagnosis, monitoring – physiologic/nursing, vital signs) | |
| dc.title | Testing effectiveness of the revised Cape Town modified early warning and SBAR systems: a pilot pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial | |
| dc.type | Journal Article |