Summary We analysed the physiological values and early warning score obtained from 1047 ward patients assessed by an intensive care outreach service. Patients were either referred directly from the wards (n = 245, 23.4%) or were routine critical care follow‐ups. Decisions were made to admit 135 patients (12.9%) to a critical care area and limit treatment in another 78 (7.4%). An increasing number of physiological abnormalities was associated with higher hospital mortality (p < 0.0001) ranging from 4.0% with no abnormalities to 51.9% with five or more. An increasing early warning score was associated with more intervention (p < 0.0001) and higher hospital mortality (p < 0.0001). For patients with scores above one (n = 660), decisions to admit to a critical care area or limit treatment were taken in 200 (30.3%). Scores of all physiological variables except temperature contributed to the need for intervention and all variables except temperature and heart rate were associated with hospital mortality.
A new standard to help identify patients in need of critical care
Institution of a specialist trauma service and performance improvement programme was associated with significant improvements in outcomes that exceeded national variations.
BackgroundThe increasing adoption of hospital electronic prescribing and medication administration (ePA) systems has driven a wealth of research around the impact on patient safety. Yet relatively little research has sought to understand the effects on staff, particularly pharmacists. We aimed to investigate the effects of ePA on pharmacists’ activities, including interactions with patients and health professionals, and their perceptions of medication safety risks.MethodsA mixed methods study comprising quantitative direct observations of ward pharmacists before and after implementation of ePA in an English hospital, and semi-structured interviews post-ePA. Quantitative data comprised multi-dimensional work activity sampling to establish the proportion of time ward pharmacists spent on different tasks, with whom and where. These data were extrapolated to estimate task duration. Qualitative interviews with pharmacists explored perceived impact on (i) ward activities, (ii) interactions with patients and different health professionals, (iii) locations where tasks were carried out, and (iv) medication errors.ResultsObservations totalled 116 h and 50 min. Task duration analysis suggested screening inpatient medication increased by 16 mins per 10 patients reviewed (p = 0.002), and searching for paper drug charts or computer decreased by 2 mins per 10 patients reviewed (p = 0.001). Pharmacists mainly worked alone (58% of time pre- and 65% post-ePA, p = 0.17), with patient interactions reducing from 5 to 2% of time (p = 0.03). Seven main themes were identified from the interviews, underpinned by a core explanatory concept around the enhanced and shifting role of the ward pharmacist post-ePA. Pharmacists perceived there to be a number of valuable safety features with ePA. However, paradoxically, some of these may have also inadvertently contributed to medication errors.ConclusionThis study provides quantitative and qualitative insights into the effects of implementing ePA on ward pharmacists’ activities. Some tasks took longer while others reduced, and pharmacists may spend less time with patients with ePA. Pharmacists valued a number of safety features associated with ePA but also perceived an overall increase in medication risk. Pharmacy staff demonstrated a degree of resilience to ensure ‘business as usual’ by enhancing and adapting their role.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-3986-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.