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.

Evaluating the performance of the National Early Warning Score in different diagnostic groups.

BACKGROUND: The National Early Warning Score (NEWS) is used in hospitals across the UK to detect deterioration of patients within care pathways. It is used for most patients, but there are relatively few studies validating its performance in groups of patients with specific conditions. METHODS: The performance of NEWS was evaluated against 36 other Early Warning Scores, in 123 patient groups, through use of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve technique, to compare the abilities of each Early Warning Score to discriminate an outcome within 24hrs of vital sign recording. Outcomes evaluated were death, ICU admission, or a combined outcome of either death or ICU admission within 24 hours of an observation set. RESULTS: The National Early Warning Score 2 performs either best or joint best within 120 of the 123 patient groups evaluated and is only outperformed in prediction of unanticipated ICU admission. When outperformed by other Early Warning Scores in the remaining 3 patient groups, the performance difference was marginal. CONCLUSIONS: Consistently high performance indicates that NEWS is a suitable early warning score to use for all diagnostic groups considered by this analysis, and patients are not disadvantaged through use of NEWS in comparison to any of the other evaluated Early Warning Scores.

P-POSSUM and the NELA Score Overpredict Mortality for Laparoscopic Emergency Bowel Surgery: An Analysis of the NELA Database.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification has become a key part of the care processes for patients having emergency bowel surgery. This study aimed to determine if operative approach influences risk-model performance, and risk-adjusted mortality rates in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A prospectively planned analysis was conducted using National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) data from December 2013 to November 2018. The risk-models investigated were P-POSSUM and the NELA Score, with model performance assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. Risk-adjusted mortality was assessed using Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMR). Analysis was performed for the total cohort, and cases performed open, laparoscopically and converted to open. Sub-analysis was performed for cases with ≤ 20% predicted mortality. RESULTS: Data were available for 116 396 patients with P-POSSUM predicted mortality, and 46 935 patients with the NELA score. Both models displayed excellent discrimination with little variation between operative approaches (c-statistic: P-POSSUM 0.801-0.836; NELA Score 0.811-0.862). The NELA score was well calibrated across all deciles of risk, but P-POSSUM over-predicted risk beyond 20% mortality. Calibration plots for operative approach demonstrated that both models increasingly over-predicted mortality for laparoscopy, relative to open and converted to open surgery. SMRs calculated using both models consistently demonstrated that risk-adjusted mortality with laparoscopy was a third lower than open surgery. CONCLUSION: Risk-adjusted mortality for emergency bowel surgery is lower for laparoscopy than open surgery, with P-POSSUM and NELA score both over-predicting mortality for laparoscopy. Operative approach should be considered in the development of future risk-models that rely on operative data.

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

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.

The performance of the National Early Warning Score and National Early Warning Score 2 in hospitalised patients infected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

INTRODUCTION: Since the introduction of the UK's National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and its modification, NEWS2, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused a worldwide pandemic. NEWS and NEWS2 have good predictive abilities in patients with other infections and sepsis, however there is little evidence of their performance in COVID-19. METHODS: Using receiver-operating characteristics analyses, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve to evaluate the performance of NEWS or NEWS2 to discriminate the combined outcome of either death or intensive care unit (ICU) admission within 24 h of a vital sign set in five cohorts (COVID-19 POSITIVE, n = 405; COVID-19 NOT DETECTED, n = 1716; COVID-19 NOT TESTED, n = 2686; CONTROL 2018, n = 6273; CONTROL 2019, n = 6523). RESULTS: The AUROC values for NEWS or NEWS2 for the combined outcome were: COVID-19 POSITIVE, 0.882 (0.868-0.895); COVID-19 NOT DETECTED, 0.875 (0.861-0.89); COVID-19 NOT TESTED, 0.876 (0.85-0.902); CONTROL 2018, 0.894 (0.884-0.904); CONTROL 2019, 0.842 (0.829-0.855). CONCLUSIONS: The finding that NEWS or NEWS2 performance was good and similar in all five cohorts (range = 0.842-0.894) suggests that amendments to NEWS or NEWS2, such as the addition of new covariates or the need to change the weighting of existing parameters, are unnecessary when evaluating patients with COVID-19. Our results support the national and international recommendations for the use of NEWS or NEWS2 for the assessment of acute-illness severity in patients with COVID-19.

Artificial light during the polar night disrupts Arctic fish and zooplankton behaviour down to 200 m depth.

For organisms that remain active in one of the last undisturbed and pristine dark environments on the planet-the Arctic Polar Night-the moon, stars and aurora borealis may provide important cues to guide distribution and behaviours, including predator-prey interactions. With a changing climate and increased human activities in the Arctic, such natural light sources will in many places be masked by the much stronger illumination from artificial light. Here we show that normal working-light from a ship may disrupt fish and zooplankton behaviour down to at least 200 m depth across an area of >0.125 km2 around the ship. Both the quantitative and qualitative nature of the disturbance differed between the examined regions. We conclude that biological surveys in the dark from illuminated ships may introduce biases on biological sampling, bioacoustic surveys, and possibly stock assessments of commercial and non-commercial species.