Prevalence of missed nursing care and its association with work experience: A cross-sectional survey.

Background: Nurses faced with multiple demands in hospitals are often compelled to prioritize nursing care. Knowledge of missed nursing care provides insight into whether necessary nursing care is delivered, what is missed, and the reasons for missed nursing care. This insight is essential to support evidence-based policy and practice to improve patient care, enhance nursing practice, and optimize the work environment. Research on factors influencing missed nursing care is imperative to implement targeted strategies. However, studies investigating work experience as a predictor are inconclusive, and no identified studies have examined how nurses' work experience is associated with different elements of missed nursing care. Objectives: To investigate the prevalence and reasons for missed nursing care and whether nurses' work experience was associated with missed nursing care. Design: The design was cross-sectional, using the Danish version of the MISSCARE survey. Setting: The study was conducted at a public Danish university hospital with 1,150 beds and approximately 10,350 employees. Participants: Across 34 surgical, medical, and mixed bed wards for adults, 1,241 nurses were invited by email to respond anonymously to the Danish MISSCARE survey. Of these nurses, 50.3% responded, and 42.6% fully completed the questionnaire. Methods: A total score mean and a mean score were calculated and then compared between experience (≤5 years/>5 years) in a linear regression model adjusting for unequally distributed variables. Results: More than two thirds of the nurses reported that emotional support, patient bathing, ambulation, mouth care, interdisciplinary conferences, documentation, and assessing effectiveness of medication were frequently missed elements of nursing care. The most significant reasons for missed nursing care were an inadequate number of nurses, an unexpected rise in patient volume, urgent patient situations, heavy admission, and discharge activity. Nurses with work experience of less than 5 years reported more missed nursing care, especially within fundamental care. Conclusions: Nursing elements to avoid potentially critical situations and nursing related to treatment observations were rarely missed, while nursing care elements visible only to the patient and the nurse were most often missed. By increasing transparency and explicitness within nursing care, the results enable critical evaluation of prioritization of nursing care elements. The number of staff not balancing the number and acuity of patients was the main reason for missed nursing care. The perception of missed nursing care was most pronounced in less experienced nurses. The study contributes to the global research community to achieve a broader understanding of missed nursing care. Tweetable abstract: Nursing to avoid potentially critical situations and treatment observations are prioritized over fundamental care, perceived mainly by less experienced nurses.

How does a nursing crisis management intervention impact relatives' experiences in two trauma centres? A time-series study.

Background: Being a relative to a trauma patient may be a dramatic experience. Often, trauma centre nurses do not feel they have the competences needed to meet relatives experiencing a crisis. Therefore, a need exists to enhance their crisis management competencies. Objective: To investigate relatives' experiences of a nursing crisis management intervention on information, inclusion and support, including the importance of these needs in two Danish trauma centres. Design: A prospective intervention study based on interrupted time series. The intervention, conducted in 2020-2021, consisted of a crisis management training programme. Settings: The Trauma Centre of the Aarhus University Hospital and Aalborg University Hospital in Denmark. Participants: Relatives (18+ years) of critically ill or injured patients (n = 293). Methods: Data were collected using a 32-item questionnaire. The primary outcome was relatives' overall experience of the quality of the information, inclusion and support measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-10). Secondary outcomes were changes in risk ratios and scores between the periods for each of the three main variables. The outcome was measured as weighted and non-weighted scores, taking into account the importance of each variable. Besides use of interrupted time series, predictive and weight-adjusted analyses were performed. Time series comprised a before-period (6 months), an implementation period (3 months) and an after-period (6 months). Due to ceiling effect, the predictive analysis was dichotomized using the median scores for information, inclusion and support. Results: Overall, no differences were observed between the participants' characteristics in each of the three periods. Comparing the implementation period with the after-period revealed a statistically significant positive difference between the relatives' assessment of crisis management [p = 0.009]. Additionally, the probability of scoring >8 from before to after the intervention increased statistically significantly [Risk ratio 1.21, 95 % confidence interval 1.16-1.27]. The secondary outcomes showed that the greatest change over time was inclusion of relatives [Risk ratio, 1.25 95 % confidence interval 1.15-1.35]. Information had the greatest effect on relatives' experience of nurses' provision of crisis management and was also the needs area that relatives considered most important. However, information was also the needs area that evolved least during the study. Conclusions: Based on the selected cut-off levels, the intervention appeared to have a positive effect on relatives' experiences - especially inclusion of relatives. In the weighted analyses, information was considered most important and also had the greatest effect on relatives' overall experience. Nurses' crisis management competencies should be prioritized in trauma centres.

Opportunistic screening for COPD among socially marginalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disease associated with premature death. Tobacco exposure is the main risk factor, but lower socioeconomic status, early life insults, and occupational exposures are also important risk factors. Socially marginalized people, facing homelessness, substance use disorder, and mental illness, are likely to have a higher risk of developing COPD, and, furthermore, experience barriers to healthcare access and consequently poorer outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess COPD prevalence and the impact of opportunistic screening among hospitalized patients who are in contact with hospital social nurses. These patients constitute a group of patients with a high prevalence of psychiatric and somatic diseases, substance use, low life expectancy, and are socially marginalized. METHODS: The present prospective longitudinal study includes a clinical examination at baseline. Participants will have spirometry done and be interviewed regarding risk factors, socioeconomic conditions, and respiratory symptoms. The 5-year follow-up assessment incorporates data from baseline and register data over the 5 years, including information on morbidity, use of COPD medication, hospital contacts, mortality, and socioeconomic factors. ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Referral for further diagnostic work-up and management after the screening, including COPD treatment and smoking cessation support, is expected to improve survival rates. The study is still enrolling patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04754308 with study status: "enrolling".

Patients with repeated acute admissions to somatic departments: sociodemographic characteristics, disease burden, and contact with primary healthcare sector - a retrospective register-based case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems face escalating capacity challenges and patients with repeated acute admissions strain hospital resources disproportionately. However, studies investigating the characteristics of such patients across all public healthcare providers in a universal healthcare system are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To investigate characteristics of patients with repeated acute admissions (three or more acute admissions within a calendar year) in regard to sociodemographic characteristics, disease burden, and contact with the primary healthcare sector. METHODS: This matched register-based case-control study investigated repeated acute admissions from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018, among individuals, who resided in four Danish municipalities. The study included 6169 individuals with repeated acute admissions, matched 1:4 to individuals with no acute admissions and one to two acute admissions, respectively. Group comparisons were conducted using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Receiving social benefits increased the odds of repeated acute admissions 9.5-fold compared with no acute admissions (odds ratio (OR) 9.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.5; 10.6) and 3.4-fold compared with one to two acute admissions (OR 3.4; 95% CI 3.1; 3.7). The odds of repeated acute admissions increased with the number of used medications and chronic diseases. Having a mental illness increased the odds of repeated acute admissions 5.8-fold when compared with no acute admissions (OR 5.7; 95% CI 5.2; 6.4) and 2.3-fold compared with one to two acute admissions (OR 2.3; 95% CI 2.1; 2.5). Also, high use of primary sector services (e.g. nursing care) increased the odds of repeated acute admissions when compared with no acute admissions and one to two acute admissions. CONCLUSIONS: This study pinpointed key factors encompassing social status, disease burden, and healthcare utilisation as pivotal markers of risk for repeated acute admissions, thus identifying high-risk patients and facilitating targeted intervention.

Acceptability Among Frontline Staff Toward Distributing an Anonymous Alcohol Survey in Emergency Departments: A Mixed Methods Study.

ABSTRACT: Emergency departments (EDs) serve as the front line when patients encounter the hospital system. Limited data are available of patients' alcohol habits collected during Danish ED visits, and no studies have, to our knowledge, examined frontline staffs' (registered nurses and medical secretaries) acceptability to deliver anonymous alcohol surveys to patients. We aimed at examining the proportion of survey respondents and the prevalence of patients' alcohol habits and also exploring frontline staff acceptability of the distribution of an anonymous survey regarding patients' alcohol habits in EDs. Intendedly, all eligible patients ≥18 years old entering two EDs in March 2019 should receive a survey based on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test. The study was an explanatory, sequential, mixed methods design, and results were analyzed with descriptive statistics and a deductive content analysis based on the theoretical framework of acceptability. In total, 15% (n = 1,305) of the total 8,679 patients in the EDs returned the survey. Qualitative analysis of interviews (n = 31) with staff showed that they had been reluctant to distribute the survey primarily because of ethical concerns of anonymity, freedom of choice, and being nonjudgmental toward patients. Hence, patients with no obvious alcohol problems were more likely to receive the survey. Still, we found that 23% of the respondents had an Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test score ≥ 8. Results indicate that frontline staffs' recognition of patients' alcohol use is inadequate, and findings show a low degree of acceptability among staff to deliver an anonymous survey, which is in line with earlier described barriers toward screening activities in EDs.

A Danish version of the MISSCARE survey: Translation and validation.

BACKGROUND: Measuring missed nursing care in clinical settings may serve as an important indicator for improving patient safety and nursing staff retention. Internationally, several tools exist, with the MISSCARE Survey being the most frequently used and validated; however, no tools are available in the Danish language. AIM: This study aimed at translating the MISSCARE Survey from US English to Danish and evaluate its psychometric properties. METHODS: The translation followed the recommended method, that is forward-and-backward translation, involving clinical experts and a professional, native English-speaking translator. The final version was approved by the survey's original developer. Face validity was tested among 10 nurses and 1 practical nurse. Nursing staff from 34 selected departments at Aarhus University Hospital's (n = 1241) were invited to participate in a pilot test in November 2020. The survey consisted of a demographic section, a section of 'nursing elements' (Part A) and section of 'reasons' (Part B). Acceptability was assessed on Part A and B. Reliability was tested by Cronbach's alpha, and psychometric properties were investigated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Part B). RESULTS: The face-validity test resulted in minor contextual changes and the addition of a 'not applicable' response option in Part A. The pilot test had a 42.6% response rate (n = 529). Acceptability was good, with 1-10 missing responses per item in Part A and 0-20 missing responses in Part B. The numbers of 'not applicable' responses ranged from 0 to 81. The overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.81. Factor-loading ranges were 0.62-0.48 for 'communication', 0.79-0.39 for 'materials and resources', and 0.50-0.35 for 'labour', suggesting an acceptable fit with the theoretical model. CONCLUSION: The MISSCARE Survey was successfully translated into Danish. The psychometric properties confirmed the questionnaire as a valid and reliable tool for measuring missed nursing care in Danish hospital settings.

Consensus on patient cases for hospitalised children with a high paediatric track and trigger tool score that raises no mounting concern: a Delphi process study.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric track and trigger tools (PTTTs) based on vital parameters have been implemented in hospitals worldwide to help healthcare professionals identify signs of critical illness and incipient deterioration in hospitalised children. It has been documented that nurses do not use PTTT as intended, but deviate from PTTT protocols because, in some situations, PTTT observations make little sense to them. The present study aimed to reach consensus on whether automatically generated PTTT scores that are higher than deemed reasonable by healthcare professionals according to their professional experience and clinical expertise may be downgraded. METHODS: A two-round modified Delphi technique was used to explore consensus on 14 patient cases for hospitalised children with a high PTTT score that did not raise concerns by systematically collating questionnaire responses. Participants rated their level of agreement on a 9-point Likert scale. IQR and median were calculated for each case. FINDINGS: A total of 221 participants completed round 1 and 101 participants completed round 2. Across the two rounds, majority of the participants were from paediatric departments, nurses and women. In round 1, consensus on inclusion was reached on 2 of the 14 cases. In round 2, consensus was reached on one additional patient case. Three of the 11 non-consensus cases remaining after rounds 1 and 2 were included by the research group based on predefined criteria. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, a consensus opinion was achieved on six patient cases where the child had a high PTTT score but where the healthcare professionals were not as concerned as indicated by the PTTT score.

Is a High Medication Risk Score Associated With Increased Risk of 30-Day Readmission? A Population-Based Cohort Study From CROSS-TRACKS.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether a high Medication Risk Score (MERIS) upon admission to an emergency department is associated with increased risk of 30-day readmission in patients discharged directly home. Mortality, visit to general practitioner, and drug changes within 30 days were included as secondary outcomes. METHODS: This is a historical cohort study with data from the Danish population-based open-cohort CROSS-TRACKS. Cox regression analyses were used to determine whether a high MERIS score was associated with increased risk of 30-day readmission and mortality. Visit to general practitioner and drug changes were tested with χ2 test and Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: A total of 2106 patients were eligible: 2017 had a MERIS score lower than 14 (low-risk group), and 89 had a score of 14 or higher (high-risk group). The proportion of patients in the high-risk group who were readmitted was 21.3% compared with 16.3% in the low-risk group, resulting in a hazard ratio for readmission of 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.3). The hazard ratio for mortality was 8.3 (95% confidence interval, 3.0-22.8). No statistical significant difference was found in general practitioner visits; however, significantly more drug changes were observed in the high-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: A high MERIS score was associated with increased risk of readmissions and can potentially assist healthcare professionals in the prioritizing of patients who may benefit from further exam, for example, additional medication review in acute care setting. Further investigation of MERIS and exploration of causal inferences between medication-related harm and medication-related readmissions are warranted.

Change in diagnosis from the emergency department to hospital discharge in dyspnoeic patients.

INTRODUCTION: To improve the outcomes of dyspnoeic patients, it is potentially important to determine the influence of uncertain diagnostic aetiology and to characterise this patient group. A change in diagnosis from emergency department (ED) contact to hospital discharge (i.e., a discordant diagnosis) served as a surrogate measure for an uncertain diagnostic aetiology. This study investigated the association between a change in diagnosis from ED contact to hospital discharge and length of stay (LOS), readmission and mortality in patients whose chief complaint was dyspnoea. The study also characterises the group of patients found to have a discordant diagnosis. METHODS: This cohort study was based on data from all ED contacts at Aarhus University Hospital from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017. Patients triaged with dyspnoea and subsequently admitted to an inpatient unit were included. RESULTS: Concordant contacts had an average LOS of 3.63 days, whereas discordant contacts had an average LOS of 4.65 days; the adjusted relative difference was 1.28 (95% CI: 1.10-1.48). Readmission, whether at seven or 30 days, was not significantly different between the groups. The 30-day mortality was 5% in the concordant and 10% in the discordant group, with an adjusted OR of 2.32 (95% CI: 1.08-4.96). CONCLUSIONS: We found an association between a change in diagnosis and longer LOS, and between a change in diagnosis and 30-day mortality. The effort made to achieve diagnostic certainty in the ED may have an impact lasting throughout the entire hospital stay. FUNDING: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

Signs and symptoms, apart from vital signs, that trigger nurses' concerns about deteriorating conditions in hospitalized paediatric patients: A scoping review.

AIM: This scoping review aimed to identify and map the signs and symptoms-apart from vital signs-that trigger nurses' concerns about the deteriorating conditions of hospitalized paediatric patients. DESIGN: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. METHODS: Six databases, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Swemed and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses databases, were searched systematically. Of 5795 citations, seven matched the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Objective observations, such as the patient's colour, pain-level changes, and behavioural observations, were identified as signs that would trigger nurses' concerns. Nurse's intuitive feelings or gut feelings when seeing a patient was also identified as an important factor for identifying a deteriorating paediatric patient. A "gut feeling" was described as both a reaction to patient signs and a feeling based on the nurse's intuition gained through experience. The signs or symptoms that would trigger this "gut feeling" were not identified.

Predicting mortality and readmission based on chief complaint in emergency department patients: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) patients present with complaints and not diagnoses. Characterization and risk stratification based on chief complaint can therefore help clinicians improve ED workflow and clinical outcome. In this study we investigated the 30-day mortality and readmission among ED patients based on chief complaint. METHODS: In this cohort study we retrieved routinely collected data from electronic medical records and the Danish Civil Registration System of all ED contacts from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. All patients triaged with one chief complaint using the Danish Emergency Process Triage system were included. Patients with minor injuries were excluded. The chief complaint assigned by the triaging nurse was used as exposure, and 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission were the primary outcomes. Logistic regression was used to determine crude and adjusted ORs with reference to the remaining study population. RESULTS: A total of 41 470 patients were eligible. After exclusion of minor injuries and patients not triaged, 19 325 patients were included. The 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission differed significantly among the chief complaints. The highest 30-day mortality was observed among patients presenting with altered level of conscousness (ALOC) (8.4%, OR=2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.1) and dyspnea (8.0%, OR=2.1, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.6). 30-day readmission was highest among patients presenting with fever/infection (11.7%, OR=1.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.4) and dyspnea (11.2%, OR=1.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.0). DISCUSSION: Chief complaint is associated with 30-day mortality and readmission in a mixed ED population. ALOC and dyspnea had the highest mortality; fever/infection and dyspnea had the highest readmission rate. This knowledge may assist in improving and optimizing symptom-based initial diagnostic workup and treatment, and ultimately improve workflow and clinical outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

A new situation awareness model decreases clinical deterioration in the emergency departments-A controlled intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that adding subjective parameters to early warning score (EWS) systems might prompt more proactive treatment and positively affect clinical outcomes. Hence, the study aimed to investigate effect of a situation awareness model consisting of objective and subjective parameters on clinical deterioration in adult emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: This controlled pre-and-post interventional study was carried out in July-December 2016 and November 2017-April 2018. In ED patients ≥ 18 years, we examined if a situation awareness model compared with a conventional EWS system could reduce clinical deterioration. The new model consisted of a regional EWS, combined with skin observation, clinical concern and patients' and relatives' concerns, pain, dyspnea, and team risk assessment. Clinical deterioration was defined as change in vital signs requiring increased observation or physician assessment, that is, increase in early warning score from either 0 or 1 to score ≥2 or an increase from score ≥2 and above. Secondary outcomes were mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and readmissions. RESULTS: We included 34 556 patients. Patients with two or more registered EWS were included in the primary analysis (N = 21 839). Using difference-in-difference regression, we found a reduced odds of clinical deterioration of 21% (OR 0.79 95% CI [0.69; 0.90]) in the intervention groups compared with controls. No impact on mortality, ICU, or readmissions was found. CONCLUSION: The situation awareness model reduces odds of clinical deterioration, defined as a clinically relevant increase in EWS, in an unselected adult population of ED patients. However, there was no effect on secondary outcomes.

Functional decline in emergency department patients with dyspnea: a register-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Functional decline is associated with frequent hospital admissions and elevated risk of death. Presumably, patients acutely admitted to hospital with dyspnea have a high risk of functional decline. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe patient characteristics, hospital trajectory and use of physiotherapy services by dyspneic patients in an emergency department. The study also wanted to compare readmission and death among patients with and without a functional decline and to identify predictors of functional decline. METHODS: Data originated from a historic cohort of patients admitted to a Danish Emergency Department using prospectively collected electronic patient record data from a Business Intelligence Registry of the Central Denmark Region. The study included adult patients who were treated at the emergency department (ED) for dyspnea in 2015. The main outcome measures were readmission, death and functional decline. RESULTS: In total, 2048 dyspneic emergency treatments were registered. Within 30 days after discharge, 20% was readmitted and 3.9% had died. Patients with functional decline had a higher rate of 30-day readmission (31.2% vs. 19.1%, P < 0.001) and mortality (9.3% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.009) as well as mortality within 1 year (36.1% vs. 13.4%, P < 0.001). Predictors of functional decline were age ≥60 years and hospital stay ≥6 days. CONCLUSION: Patients suffering from acute dyspnea are seen at the ED at all hours. In total, one in five patients were readmitted and 3.9% died within 30 days. Patients with a functional decline at discharge seem to be particularly vulnerable.

Life-Threatening and Fatal Adverse Drug Events in a Danish University Hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Detection of adverse drug events (ADEs) in Danish hospitals relies on health care professionals' incident reporting to a national database for adverse events, but the method is incomplete; thus, fatal and life-threatening ADEs may remain unrecognized.The objectives of this study were to examine the occurrence of life-threatening and fatal ADEs in population of hospitalized patients with suspected adverse outcome and to compare these findings with the actual number of reported ADEs in the study period of 3 months. METHODS: Study was designed as a cross-sectional study of adult population, hospitalized for more than 24 hours, having an unplanned transfer to an intensive care unit (ICU), or having unexpected death. Medical records were retrospectively screened by the Global Trigger Tool. All positive triggers were assessed for ADEs by a clinical pharmacologist. RESULTS: Of the 26,176 patients admitted in the study period, 105 had an unplanned transfer to the ICU and 36 died unexpectedly. In total, 15 positive triggers were identified in 10 patients. Life-threatening ADEs accounted for 7.6% (8/105) of patients transferred to the ICU, and fatal ADEs constituted 5.5% (2/36) of the deceased patients. Life-threatening and fatal ADEs corresponded to an overall prevalence of 0.04% (10/26,176). Most ADEs were related to hemorrhages and respiratory problems. No serious or fatal ADEs were reported in the incident reporting system in the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Ten life-threatening and fatal ADEs were uncovered as not reported in the incident reporting system. Further steps are needed for recognition and prevention of this patient safety challenge.

Consensus on predictors of clinical deterioration in emergency departments: A Delphi process study.

AIM: The study aim was to determine relevance and applicability of generic predictors of clinical deterioration in emergency departments based on consensus among clinicians. METHODS: Thirty-three predictors of clinical deterioration identified from literature were assessed in a modified two-stage Delphi-process. Sixty-eight clinicians (physicians and nurses) participated in the first round and 48 in the second round; all treating hospitalized patients in Danish emergency departments, some with pre-hospital experience. The panel rated the predictors for relevance (relevant marker of clinical deterioration) and applicability (change in clinical presentation over time, generic in nature and possible to detect bedside). They rated their level of agreement on a 9-point Likert scale and were also invited to propose additional generic predictors between the rounds. New predictors suggested by more than one clinician were included in the second round along with non-consensus predictors from the first round. Final decisions of non-consensus predictors after second round were made by a research group and an impartial physician. RESULTS: The Delphi-process resulted in 19 clinically relevant and applicable predictors based on vital signs and parameters (respiratory rate, saturation, dyspnoea, systolic blood pressure, pulse rate, abnormal electrocardiogram, altered mental state and temperature), biochemical tests (serum c-reactive protein, serum bicarbonate, serum lactate, serum pH, serum potassium, glucose, leucocyte counts and serum haemoglobin), objective clinical observations (skin conditions) and subjective clinical observations (pain reported as new or escalating, and relatives' concerns). CONCLUSION: The Delphi-process led to consensus of 19 potential predictors of clinical deterioration widely accepted as relevant and applicable in emergency departments.

Effects of stratified medication review in high-risk patients at admission to hospital: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients at high risk of medication errors will potentially benefit most from medication reviews. An algorithm, MERIS, can identify the patients who are at highest risk of medication errors. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of performing stratified medication reviews on patients who according to MERIS were at highest risk of medication errors. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was performed at the Acute Admissions Unit, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Patients were included at admission to the hospital and were randomised to control or intervention. The intervention consisted of stratified medication review at admission on patients with a high MERIS score. Clinical pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists performed the medication reviews; the clinical pharmacologists performed the reviews on patients with the highest MERIS score. The primary outcome measure was the number of prescribing errors during the hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included self-experienced quality of life, health-care utilisation and mortality measured at follow-up 90 days after discharge. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were included, of which medication reviews were performed in 64 patients. The medication reviews addressed 63 prescribing errors in 37 patients and 60 other drug-related problems. No difference in the number of prescribing errors during hospitalisation between the intervention group (n = 165) and control group (n = 153) was found, corresponding to 0.11 prescribing errors per drug (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08-0.14) versus 0.13 per drug (95% CI: 0.09-0.16), respectively. No differences in secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION: A stratified medication review approach based on the individual patient's risk of medication errors did not show impact on the chosen outcomes. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: How does a medication review at admission affect patients who are in high risk of medication errors? Patients are at risk of medication errors at admission to hospital. Medication reviews aim to detect and solve these. Yet, due to limited resources in healthcare, it would be beneficial to detect the patients who are most at risk of medication errors and perform medication reviews on those patients.In this study we investigated whether an algorithm, MERIS, could detect patients who are at highest risk of medication errors; we also studied whether performing medication reviews on patients at highest risk of medication errors would have an effect on, for example, the number of medication errors during hospitalisation, qualify of life and number of readmissions. We included 375 patients in a Danish acute admission unit and they were divided into control group and intervention group. Patients in the intervention group received a medication review at admission if they were considered at high risk of medication errors, assessed with the aid of MERIS. In summary, 64 patients in the intervention group were most at risk of medication errors and therefore received a medication review.We conclude in the study that MERIS was useful in identifying relevant patients for medication reviews. Yet, the medication reviews performed at admission did not impact on the chosen outcomes.

Cost-consequence analysis of self-administration of medication during hospitalization: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in a Danish hospital setting.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the costs and consequences of introducing "self-administration of medication" (SAM) during hospitalization as compared with nurse-led dispensing and administration of medication. METHODS: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial was performed in a Danish Cardiology Unit. Patients ⩾18 years old capable of self-administering medication were eligible. In the intervention group, patients self-administered their medication. In the control group, medication was dispensed and administered by nurses. The implementation of SAM was used to evaluate the cost-consequences. The micro-costing analysis used the hospital perspective and a short-term incremental costing approach. The costs for medication, materials, and nursing time were included. Consequences included the dispensing error proportion, patients' perceptions regarding medication, satisfaction, and deviations in the medication list at follow-up. In addition, the number of readmissions and general practitioner (GP) contacts within 30 days after discharge was included. RESULTS: The total cost (TC) per patient in the intervention group was 49.9€ (95% CI: 46.6-53.2) compared with 52.6€ (95% CI: 46.6-58.6) in the control group. The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.09). Sensitivity analysis consistently showed TCs favoring the intervention. The dispensing error proportion was 9.7% (95% CI: 7.9-11.6) in the intervention group compared with 12.8% (95% CI: 10.9-15.6) in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.02). The analysis also found changes in the perceptions regarding medication (indicating higher medication adherence), increased satisfaction, and fewer patients with deviations in the medication list at follow-up. No statistically significant differences between the groups in relation to readmissions and GP contacts within 30 days were observed. CONCLUSIONS: SAM seems to cost less although the cost difference was small and not statistically significant. As SAM had positive effects on patient outcomes, the results indicate that SAM may be cost-effective. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Self-administration of medication: a research study of the costs and consequences Objectives To evaluate the costs and consequences of introducing "self-administration of medication" (SAM) during hospitalization compared to medication dispensed by nurses. Methods This research study included patients ≥18 years capable of self-administering medication and was performed in a Danish cardiology unit. Patients self-administered their own medication during hospitalization in the intervention group, whereas nurses dispensed and administered the medication in the control group. Patients were allocated between groups by randomization. The costs of SAM were analyzed from a hospital perspective and included costs for medication, materials, and nursing time. The consequences included the proportion of dispensing errors, patients' perceptions regarding medication, patient satisfaction, deviations in the medication list at follow-up, the number of readmissions and general practitioner (GP) contacts within 30 days after discharge. Results The total cost per patient was 49.9€ in the intervention group compared to 52.6€ in the control group (p = 0.09). The cost difference between groups was not significant. The proportion of dispensing errors was significantly lower in the intervention group compared to the control group. In addition the research study found changes in the perceptions regarding medication, increased satisfaction, and fewer patients with deviations in the medication list at follow-up. For readmissions and GP contacts within 30 days no significant differences between groups were found. Conclusion SAM cost less or equal to medication dispensing and administration by nurse. SAM had positive impacts on patient outcomes. Therefore, SAM may be cost-effective.

Self-administration of medication during hospitalization-a randomized pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Self-administration of medication (SAM) during hospitalization is a complex intervention where patients are involved in their course of treatment. The study aim was to pilot test the SAM intervention. The objectives were to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial on the safety and cost-consequences of SAM during hospitalization. METHODS: The study was performed in a Danish cardiology unit.Patients ≥ 18 years capable of self-administering medication during hospitalization were eligible. Patients were excluded if they did not self-administer medication at home, were incapable of self-administering medication, were not prescribed medication suitable for self-administration, did not bring their medication, or were unable to speak Danish.Feasibility was assessed as part of the pilot study. A future randomized controlled trial was considered feasible if it was possible to recruit 60 patients within 3 months, if outcome measurement method was capable of detecting dispensing errors in both groups, and if patients in the intervention group were more satisfied with the medication management during hospitalization compared to the control group.Forty patients were recruited to gain experience about the intervention (self-administration). Additionally, 20 patients were randomized to the intervention or control group (nurse-led dispensing) to gain experience about the randomization procedure.Dispensing error proportions were based on data collected through disguised observation of patients and nurses during dispensing. The error proportion in the control group was used for the sample size calculation. Patient acceptability was assessed through telephone calls. RESULTS: Of the 60 patients recruited, one withdrew and 11 were discharged before observation resulting in analysis of 39 patients in the intervention group and nine in the control group. A dispensing error proportion of 3.4% was found in the intervention group and 16.1% in the control group. A total of 91.7% of patients in the intervention group and 66.7% in the control group were highly satisfied with the medication management during hospitalization. The overall protocol worked as planned. Minor changes in exclusion criteria, intervention, and outcome measures were considered. CONCLUSIONS: It may be feasible to perform a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the safety and cost-consequences of self-administration of medication during hospitalization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03541421, retrospectively registered on 30 May 2018.

Signs and symptoms that trigger nurses' concerns about deteriorating conditions in hospitalized pediatric patients: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify and map the signs and symptoms that trigger nurses' concerns about the deteriorating conditions of hospitalized pediatric patients. INTRODUCTION: Standardized observations and risk assessments of hospitalized pediatric patients are important in modern health systems. The Pediatric Early Warning Score (PEWS) is based on objective criteria, such as vital parameters, but does not include subjective criteria, such as nurses' worry. A Dutch study has shown that adding indicators for "worry" or "concern" to an early warning system based on vital signs improves the prediction of unplanned adult admissions to intensive care units. However, this has not been studied in a pediatric population. Clarifying the signs and symptoms that trigger nurses' concerns about pediatric patients' conditions could possibly help them take actions based on their intuitive feelings and obtain medical support for pediatric patients in the early stages of deterioration. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies that include nurses working in hospital settings who care for pediatric patients (up to 18 years of age). Specifically, this scoping review will explore the signs and symptoms that underlie nurses' concerns about a pediatric patient's condition when the patient's vital signs are not a cause of worry. METHODS: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The review will search MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and Swemed databases. The review will also search for unpublished PhD dissertations using the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Self-administration of medication: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the impact on dispensing errors, perceptions, and satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to investigate whether self-administration of medication (SAM) during hospitalization affects the number of dispensing errors, perceptions regarding medication, and participant satisfaction when compared with nurse-led medication dispensing. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial was performed in a Danish cardiology unit. Patients aged ⩾ 18 years capable of SAM were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they did not self-administer medication at home, were not prescribed medication suitable for self-administration, or did not speak Danish.Intervention group participants self-administered their medication. In the control group, medication was dispensed and administered by nurses.The primary outcome was the proportion of dispensing errors collected through modified disguised observation of participants and nurses. Dispensing errors were divided into clinical and procedural errors.Secondary outcomes were explored through telephone calls to determine participant perceptions regarding medication and satisfaction, and finally, deviations in their medication list two weeks after discharge. RESULTS: Significantly fewer dispensing errors were observed in the intervention group, with 100 errors/1033 opportunities for error (9.7%), compared with 132 errors/1028 opportunities for error (12.8%) in the control group. The number of clinical errors was significantly reduced, whereas no difference in procedural errors was observed. At follow up, those who were self-administering medication had fewer concerns regarding their medication, found medication to be less harmful, were more satisfied, preferred this opportunity in the future, and had fewer deviations in their medication list after discharge compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the reduced number of dispensing errors in the intervention group, indicate that SAM is safe. In addition, SAM had a positive impact on (a) perceptions regarding medication, thus suggesting increased medication adherence, (b) deviations in medication list after discharge, and (c) participant satisfaction related to medication management at the hospital.