Incidence, severity and detection of blood pressure and heart rate perturbations in postoperative ward patients after noncardiac surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine changes in continuous mean and systolic blood pressure and heart rate in a cohort of non-cardiac surgical patients recovering on the postoperative ward. Furthermore, we estimated the proportion of vital signs changes that would remain undetected with intermittent vital signs checks. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Post-operative general ward. PATIENTS: 14,623 adults recovering from non-cardiac surgical procedures. INTERVENTIONS & MEASUREMENTS: Using a wireless, noninvasive monitor, we recorded postoperative blood pressure and heart rate at 15-s intervals and encouraged nursing intervention as clinically indicated. MAIN RESULTS: 7% of our cohort of 14,623 patients spent >15 sustained minutes with a MAP <65 mmHg, and 23% had MAP <75 mmHg for 15 sustained minutes. Hypertension was more common, with 67% of patients spending at least 60 sustained minutes with MAP >110 mmHg. Systolic pressures <90 mmHg were present for 15 sustained minutes in about a fifth of all patients, and 40% of patients had pressures >160 mmHg sustained for 30 min. 40% of patients were tachycardic with heart rates >100 beats/min for at least continuous 15 min and 15% of patients were bradycardic at a threshold of <50 beats/min for 5 sustained minutes. Conventional vital sign assessments at 4-h intervals would have missed 54% of mean pressure episodes <65 mmHg sustained >15 min, 20% of episodes of mean pressures >130 mmHg sustained >30 min, 36% of episodes of heart rate > 120 beats/min sustained <10 min, and 68% of episodes of heart rate sustained <40 beats per minute for >3 min. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial hemodynamic disturbances persisted despite implementing continuous portable ward monitoring coupled with nursing alarms and interventions. A significant proportion of these changes would have gone undetected using traditional intermittent monitoring. Better understanding of effective responses to alarms and appropriate interventions on hospital wards remains necessary.

Couples and Miscarriage: The Influence of Gender and Reproductive Factors on the Impact of Miscarriage.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the effect of gender, age, mental health history, and reproductive factors on the appraisal of miscarriage in couples. DESIGN: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Couples Miscarriage Healing Project. SAMPLE: We analyzed data from 341 couples who had miscarried within 3 months of the original study recruitment. METHOD: Multifactorial analysis of variance was used to analyze baseline effects of gender, age, mental health history, infertility, number of miscarriages, living children, and gestational age on the impact of miscarriage as measured by the three subscales of the Revised Impact of Miscarriage Scale: Isolation/Guilt, Devastating Event, and Loss of Baby. RESULTS: Women scored significantly higher than men on all measures. Younger couples in whom either member had been previously treated for anxiety, depression, or grief were more likely to feel guilt and isolation over their miscarriage than those with no such history (13.30 vs. 11.64; p < .0001) and older couples with and without a mental health treatment history. Younger couples were also more likely to identify miscarriage as the "loss of a baby" and feel more devastated than older couples. Couples with infertility were more devastated (14.30 vs. 11.20; p < .01) and felt more isolation/guilt related to miscarriage (13.59 vs. 12.72; p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In general, couples experiencing miscarriage after 8 weeks gestation were more impacted than when the miscarriage occurred before 8 weeks. Recommendations for future practice and research are discussed.

Measuring the meaning of miscarriage: revision of the Impact of Miscarriage Scale.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine a factor structure for the Impact of Miscarriage Scale (IMS). The 24 items comprising the IMS were originally derived from a phenomenological study of miscarriage in women. Initial psychometric properties were established based on a sample of 188 women (Swanson, 1999a). METHOD: Data from 341 couples were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). RESULTS: CFA did not confirm the original structure. EFA explained 57% of the variance through an 18-item, 4-factor structure: isolation and guilt, loss of baby, devastating event, and adjustment. Except for the Adjustment subscale, Cronbach's alpha coefficients were > or = .78. CONCLUSION: Although a 3-factor solution is most defensible, with further refinement and additional items, the 4th factor (adjustment) may warrant retention.