Improving sepsis recognition through use of the Sepsis Trust's community screening tool

Baker, Edward

doi:10.12968/bjcn.2022.27.2.69

Cited by 1 publication

(9 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Pritchard and Velayudhan (2011) reported that only 17% of community nurses and 36% of primary health care nurses were assessing patients for cognitive decline due to a lack of standards and consistency for dementia education in pre‐registration training. The role of nurses in educating patients about early warning signs of deterioration was noted by several authors (Baker, 2022; Ekong et al., 2016; Georgiev et al., 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Furthermore, the introduction of ‘early warning systems’ has shown to assist community nurses to identify the need for urgent referral to accident and emergency services (Nazarko, 2019; Tucker & Lusher, 2018). For example, in the United Kingdom, a national enquiry reported that around 70% of sepsis cases originated in the community setting (Baker, 2022). This prompted the implementation of National Health Service patient safety alert that required hospital and ambulance services to use the track‐and‐trigger recognition system for clinical deterioration (NEWS2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Transfer to hospital was timelier when community nurses completed the NEWS2 checklist when calling an ambulance (Nazarko, 2019). Further, the implementation of a flag system not only provided support for the decision‐making process in terms of responding to patient deterioration but also aided recognition of patient deterioration, improving consistency in the decision‐making process around sepsis and improving patient outcomes (Baker, 2022). However, Waterworth et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Approximately 41% of articles were published 2000–2013 and 59% in the last decade. The United States (Battaglia, 2017; Cochran et al., 2017; Ekong et al., 2016; Georgiev et al., 2019; Issel & Bekemeier, 2010; Lindsay et al., 2009; Poghosyan et al., 2017; Rusli et al., 2021; Wenger et al., 2011) and the United Kingdom (Baker, 2022; Barrett, 2012; Boyd et al., 2009; Forbes et al., 2006; McGraw, 2019; Nazarko, 2019; Pritchard & Velayudhan, 2011; Start et al., 2016; Sworn & Booth, 2020; Tucker & Lusher, 2018) accounted for 56% of the study locations, followed by the Netherlands (de Vries et al., 2013; Gingele et al., 2021; Smit et al., 2013), Canada (Domm & Urban, 2020; Irvine et al., 2000; McCourt & Griffin, 2000), and Australia (Gray et al., 2018; Katterl et al., 2012; Marley et al., 2012). Other locations included China (Chin et al., 2011), Ireland (Phelan et al., 2018), Norway (Strømme et al., 2020), Spain (Lopez‐Dicastillo et al., 2020), New Zealand (Waterworth et al., 2015) and Japan (Taniguchi et al., 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, the implementation of a flag system not only provided support for the decision-making process in terms of responding to patient deterioration but also aided recognition of patient deterioration, improving consistency in the decision-making process around sepsis and improving patient outcomes (Baker, 2022).…”

Section: Use Of Screening Tools and Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Clinical deterioration as a nurse sensitive indicator in the out‐of‐hospital context: A scoping review

McCullough,

Baker,

Bloxsome

et al. 2023

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsTo explore and summarise the literature on the concept of ‘clinical deterioration’ as a nurse‐sensitive indicator of quality of care in the out‐of‐hospital context.DesignThe scoping review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for Scoping Review and the JBI best practice guidelines for scoping reviews.MethodsStudies focusing on clinical deterioration, errors of omission, nurse sensitive indicators and the quality of nursing and midwifery care for all categories of registered, enrolled, or licensed practice nurses and midwives in the out‐of‐hospital context were included regardless of methodology. Text and opinion papers were also considered. Study protocols were excluded.Data SourcesData bases were searched from inception to June 2022 and included CINAHL, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, EmCare, Maternity and Infant Care Database, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet, Informit Health and Society Database, JSTOR, Nursing and Allied Health Database, RURAL, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Institute.ResultsThirty‐four studies were included. Workloads, education and training opportunities, access to technology, home visits, clinical assessments and use of screening tools or guidelines impacted the ability to recognise, relay information and respond to clinical deterioration in the out‐of‐hospital setting.ConclusionsLittle is known about the work of nurses or midwives in out‐of‐hospital settings and their recognition, reaction to and relay of information about patient deterioration. The complex and subtle nature of non‐acute deterioration creates challenges in defining and subsequently evaluating the role and impact of nurses in these settings.Implications for the profession and/or patient careFurther research is needed to clarify outcome measures and nurse contribution to the care of the deteriorating patient in the out‐of‐hospital setting to reduce the rate of avoidable hospitalisation and articulate the contribution of nurses and midwives to patient care.ImpactWhat Problem Did the Study Address?Factors that impact a nurse's ability to recognise, relay information and respond to clinical deterioration in the out‐of‐hospital setting are not examined to date.What Were the Main Findings?A range of factors were identified that impacted a nurse's ability to recognise, relay information and respond to clinical deterioration in the out‐of‐hospital setting including workloads, education and training opportunities, access to technology, home visits, clinical assessments, use of screening tools or guidelines, and avoidable hospitalisation.Where and on whom will the research have an impact?Nurses and nursing management will benefit from understanding the factors that act as barriers and facilitators for effective recognition of, and responding to, a deteriorating patient in the out‐of‐hospital setting. This in turn will impact patient survival and satisfaction.Reporting MethodThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for Scoping Review guidelines guided this review. The PRISMA‐Scr Checklist (Tricco et al., 2018) is included as (supplementary file 1).Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.”No Patient or Public ContributionNot required as the Scoping Review used publicly available information.

show abstract