Safer and more efficient vital signs monitoring protocols to identify the deteriorating patients in the general hospital ward: an observational study.

Background: The frequency at which patients should have their vital signs (e.g. blood pressure, pulse, oxygen saturation) measured on hospital wards is currently unknown. Current National Health Service monitoring protocols are based on expert opinion but supported by little empirical evidence. The challenge is finding the balance between insufficient monitoring (risking missing early signs of deterioration and delays in treatment) and over-observation of stable patients (wasting resources needed in other aspects of care). Objective: Provide an evidence-based approach to creating monitoring protocols based on a patient's risk of deterioration and link these to nursing workload and economic impact. Design: Our study consisted of two parts: (1) an observational study of nursing staff to ascertain the time to perform vital sign observations; and (2) a retrospective study of historic data on patient admissions exploring the relationships between National Early Warning Score and risk of outcome over time. These were underpinned by opinions and experiences from stakeholders. Setting and participants: Observational study: observed nursing staff on 16 randomly selected adult general wards at four acute National Health Service hospitals. Retrospective study: extracted, linked and analysed routinely collected data from two large National Health Service acute trusts; data from over 400,000 patient admissions and 9,000,000 vital sign observations. Results: Observational study found a variety of practices, with two hospitals having registered nurses take the majority of vital sign observations and two favouring healthcare assistants or student nurses. However, whoever took the observations spent roughly the same length of time. The average was 5:01 minutes per observation over a 'round', including time to locate and prepare the equipment and travel to the patient area. Retrospective study created survival models predicting the risk of outcomes over time since the patient was last observed. For low-risk patients, there was little difference in risk between 4 hours and 24 hours post observation. Conclusions: We explored several different scenarios with our stakeholders (clinicians and patients), based on how 'risk' could be managed in different ways. Vital sign observations are often done more frequently than necessary from a bald assessment of the patient's risk, and we show that a maximum threshold of risk could theoretically be achieved with less resource. Existing resources could therefore be redeployed within a changed protocol to achieve better outcomes for some patients without compromising the safety of the rest. Our work supports the approach of the current monitoring protocol, whereby patients' National Early Warning Score 2 guides observation frequency. Existing practice is to observe higher-risk patients more frequently and our findings have shown that this is objectively justified. It is worth noting that important nurse-patient interactions take place during vital sign monitoring and should not be eliminated under new monitoring processes. Our study contributes to the existing evidence on how vital sign observations should be scheduled. However, ultimately, it is for the relevant professionals to decide how our work should be used. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN10863045. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/05/03) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Patient recovery in hospital is tracked by measuring heart rate, blood pressure and other 'vital signs' and converting them into a score. These are 'observed' regularly by nursing staff so that deterioration can be spotted early. However, taking observations can disturb patients, and taking them too often causes extra work for staff. More frequent monitoring is recommended for higher scores, but evidence is lacking. To work out how often patients should be monitored, we needed to know how likely it is for patients to become more unwell between observations. We analysed over 400,000 patient records from two hospitals to understand how scores change with time. We looked at three of the most serious risks for patients in hospital. These risks are dying, needing intensive care or having a cardiac arrest. We also looked at the risk that a patient's condition would deteriorate significantly before their measurements were taken again. We identified early signs of deterioration and how changes in vital signs affected the risk of a patient's condition becoming worse. From this we calculated a maximum risk of deterioration. We then calculated different monitoring schedules that keep individual patients below this risk level. Some of those would consume less staff time than current National Health Service guidelines suggest. We also watched staff record patients' vital signs. We learnt it takes about 5 minutes to take these measurements from each patient. This information helped us calculate how costs would change if patients' vital signs were taken more or less often. We found that patients with a low overall score could have their vital signs monitored less often without being in danger of serious harm. This frees up nursing time so that patients with a higher score can be monitored more often. Importantly, this can be achieved without employing more staff.

Patient perceptions and understanding of pressure ulcer risk in the community: Empirical Research Qualitative.

AIMS: To explore patient perceptions and understanding of their pressure ulcer risk and how information is communicated between a nurse and patient in the home setting. DESIGN: A pragmatic qualitative research design including community-dwelling patients, who were deemed at risk of developing a pressure ulcer. METHODS: Observation of routine interactions between nurse and patient regarding their pressure ulcer risk and semi-structured interviews with 15 community patients following the nursing interaction. RESULTS: Four key overarching themes emerged from the data analysis that were related to patient perceptions and understanding of pressure ulcer risk. These included Pressure Ulcer Awareness, Importance of Repositioning, Healthy Eating and Risk Interpretation. CONCLUSION: Patient perception and understanding of pressure ulcer risk is different from the scientific, professional view. Patient risk perception was based on heuristics and wider personal factors and social influences. IMPACT: The study provides important new insights into clinical practice in relation to how pressure ulcer advice and information are provided and interpreted in the community setting. REPORTING METHOD: Adhered to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A small selection of patients within the NHS Trust in which the research was conducted contributed to the design of the study, in particular some of the interview questions and timing.

'I'll put up with things for a long time before I need to call anybody': Face work, the Total Institution and the perpetuation of care inequalities.

Failures in fundamental care (e.g. nutrition or pain-relief) for hospitalised patients can have serious consequences, including avoidable deaths. Policy rhetoric of 'shared decision-making' fails to consider how structural constraints and power dynamics limit patient agency in nursing staff-patient interactions. Goffman's concepts of face work, the presentation of self and the Total Institution shaped our analysis of interview and focus group data from hospital patients. Patients avoided threatening 'good' patient and staff face by only requesting missed care when staff face was convincing as 'caring' and 'available' ('engaged'). Patients did not request care from 'distracted' staff ('caring' but not 'available'), whilst patient requests were ignored in Total Institution-like 'dismissive' interactions. This meant patients experienced missed care with both 'distracted' and 'dismissive' staff. Patients with higher support needs were less able to carry out their own missed care to protect staff face, so experienced more serious care omissions. These findings show that many elements of the Total Institution survive in modern healthcare settings despite attempts to support individualised care. Unless nursing staff can maintain face as 'engaged' (despite organisational constraints that can reduce their capacity to do so) patient participation in care decisions will remain at the level of rhetoric.

Patient involvement in pressure ulcer prevention and adherence to prevention strategies: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic wounds including pressure ulcers represent a significant burden to patients and healthcare providers. Increasingly patients are required to self-manage their care but patient adherence to prevention strategies is a significant clinical challenge. It is important to increase understanding of the factors affecting patients' ability and willingness to follow pressure ulcer prevention interventions. OBJECTIVES: To investigate from a patient perspective the factors affecting adherence to pressure ulcer prevention strategies. DESIGN: Integrative literature review. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of electronic databases (Athens, Pub Med, Web of Science, Science Direct, AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, Google Scholar, Delphis) was initially conducted in May 2017 (repeated August 2018). REVIEW METHODS: The methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) principles. The Noticing, Collecting, Thinking (NCT) model of qualitative data analysis was used to identify key themes. RESULTS: A total of twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The majority of studies were qualitative and three key themes were identified: (i) individual/daily lifestyle considerations, (ii) patient involvement in the decision-making process, and (iii) pain and/or discomfort. CONCLUSION: There is limited research that focuses on the patient view of factors affecting adherence to prevention measures, particularly in community settings. Individual and daily lifestyle considerations and involvement in decision-making around pressure ulcer care are important aspects from the patient perspective. Further research is necessary to explore which factors affect patient adherence in order to improve clinical practice and support patient involvement in preventative strategies.