Implementing real-time sepsis alerts using middleware and smartphone technology

Q4 Nursing
M. Zimmermann, You “Jay” Chung, Cara Fleming, Jericho Garcia, Yekaterina Tayban, H. J. Alvarez, MaryAnn Connor
{"title":"Implementing real-time sepsis alerts using middleware and smartphone technology","authors":"M. Zimmermann, You “Jay” Chung, Cara Fleming, Jericho Garcia, Yekaterina Tayban, H. J. Alvarez, MaryAnn Connor","doi":"10.1097/01.CCN.0000654832.34404.99","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A s clinical practice continues to evolve and improve, technology has become increasingly integrated into everyday clinical workflow. From alarms and alerts to pointof-care electronic clinical communication tools, the future of healthcare depends on the ability to implement technology to improve quality and safety of patient care.1 Adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) has been found to improve clinicians’ performance by providing access to aggregated patient information such as lab results, nursing notes, and alerts.2 The use of decision support system technology, along with clinical reasoning, can help decrease errors and avoid delays in treatment.3 Real-time alerts and data to and from mobile platforms can lead to early diagnosis and detection, with the opportunity to improve quality of life and reduce healthcare costs.4 However, caution must be taken with these implementations to evaluate and address alert fatigue (often called alarm fatigue) and ensure alerts are clinically actionable and relevant.5 Development of alert algorithms through an EHR should help provide clinical decision support by supplying relevant information, at the time it is needed, to the correct clinician.6 An example of this includes the high-risk scenario of sepsis identification, with alerts triggered from the EHR. Research has shown that sepsis alerts can help improve patient outcomes by assisting with early detection.7,8 A study by Dziadzko and colleagues compared the emergence of smartphones for sepsis alerts to EHR-based notifications and pagers to determine the best method of notification delivery.6 Due to technologic failures and barriers, sepsis smartphone alerts were unsuccessful, and clinicians continued to use pagers and EHR-based alerts.6 Continued research and development were identified as needs to better evaluate the efficacy of smartphone alerts in a clinical setting.6 Since May 2013, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) has regulated that hospitals maintain sepsis protocols that use explicit algorithms and/ or alert systems to assist in the early identification of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.9,10 However, in January 2017, regulatory changes necessitated real-time, prospective identification of sepsis and standardized clinician documentation.11 This documentation was needed to record an initial assessment, and recognition of sepsis signs and symptoms as well as verifying reassessment of the patient’s sepsis signs and symptoms within 6 hours of management. At Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), the alert algorithm was initially set so that patients with three simultaneous abnormal vital signs, new (in a 24-hour period) altered mental status, or rigors in the presence of two abnormal vital signs triggered an alert. MSKCC has a unique population of oncology patients, and patient signs and symptoms or treatment adverse reactions could often be similar to sepsis indicators. Sepsis alerts were put in place to help with management of their complex healthcare needs and assist in identifying possible early sepsis. The nurse or patient-care technician, depending on who documented the vital signs/altered mental status, was then alerted via an instantaneous pop-up in the EHR to contact the responsible clinician to screen the patient for possible sepsis. This led to delays in clinician awareness of possible sepsis; among them was that the algorithm was designed based on nursing documentation workflows with limiting factors","PeriodicalId":19344,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/01.CCN.0000654832.34404.99","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCN.0000654832.34404.99","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

A s clinical practice continues to evolve and improve, technology has become increasingly integrated into everyday clinical workflow. From alarms and alerts to pointof-care electronic clinical communication tools, the future of healthcare depends on the ability to implement technology to improve quality and safety of patient care.1 Adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) has been found to improve clinicians’ performance by providing access to aggregated patient information such as lab results, nursing notes, and alerts.2 The use of decision support system technology, along with clinical reasoning, can help decrease errors and avoid delays in treatment.3 Real-time alerts and data to and from mobile platforms can lead to early diagnosis and detection, with the opportunity to improve quality of life and reduce healthcare costs.4 However, caution must be taken with these implementations to evaluate and address alert fatigue (often called alarm fatigue) and ensure alerts are clinically actionable and relevant.5 Development of alert algorithms through an EHR should help provide clinical decision support by supplying relevant information, at the time it is needed, to the correct clinician.6 An example of this includes the high-risk scenario of sepsis identification, with alerts triggered from the EHR. Research has shown that sepsis alerts can help improve patient outcomes by assisting with early detection.7,8 A study by Dziadzko and colleagues compared the emergence of smartphones for sepsis alerts to EHR-based notifications and pagers to determine the best method of notification delivery.6 Due to technologic failures and barriers, sepsis smartphone alerts were unsuccessful, and clinicians continued to use pagers and EHR-based alerts.6 Continued research and development were identified as needs to better evaluate the efficacy of smartphone alerts in a clinical setting.6 Since May 2013, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) has regulated that hospitals maintain sepsis protocols that use explicit algorithms and/ or alert systems to assist in the early identification of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.9,10 However, in January 2017, regulatory changes necessitated real-time, prospective identification of sepsis and standardized clinician documentation.11 This documentation was needed to record an initial assessment, and recognition of sepsis signs and symptoms as well as verifying reassessment of the patient’s sepsis signs and symptoms within 6 hours of management. At Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), the alert algorithm was initially set so that patients with three simultaneous abnormal vital signs, new (in a 24-hour period) altered mental status, or rigors in the presence of two abnormal vital signs triggered an alert. MSKCC has a unique population of oncology patients, and patient signs and symptoms or treatment adverse reactions could often be similar to sepsis indicators. Sepsis alerts were put in place to help with management of their complex healthcare needs and assist in identifying possible early sepsis. The nurse or patient-care technician, depending on who documented the vital signs/altered mental status, was then alerted via an instantaneous pop-up in the EHR to contact the responsible clinician to screen the patient for possible sepsis. This led to delays in clinician awareness of possible sepsis; among them was that the algorithm was designed based on nursing documentation workflows with limiting factors
使用中间件和智能手机技术实现实时败血症警报
随着临床实践的不断发展和改进,技术已越来越多地融入日常临床工作流程。从警报和警报到护理点电子临床通信工具,医疗保健的未来取决于实施技术以提高患者护理质量和安全性的能力,和警报。2决策支持系统技术的使用,以及临床推理,可以帮助减少错误,避免治疗延误。3移动平台之间的实时警报和数据可以导致早期诊断和检测,有机会提高生活质量,降低医疗成本。4然而,这些实施必须谨慎,以评估和解决警报疲劳(通常称为警报疲劳),并确保警报在临床上是可操作的和相关的。5通过EHR开发警报算法应有助于通过在需要时提供相关信息来提供临床决策支持,这方面的一个例子包括败血症识别的高风险场景,EHR会触发警报。研究表明,败血症警报可以通过协助早期检测来帮助改善患者的预后。7,8 Dziadzko及其同事的一项研究将败血症警报智能手机的出现与基于EHR的通知和寻呼机进行了比较,以确定最佳的通知传递方法。6由于技术故障和障碍,败血症智能手机警报没有成功,临床医生继续使用寻呼机和基于EHR的警报。6持续的研究和开发被确定为需要在临床环境中更好地评估智能手机警报的功效。6自2013年5月以来,纽约州卫生部(NYSDOH)已规定医院维持败血症协议,该协议使用明确的算法和/或警报系统来帮助早期识别严重败血症和感染性休克患者。9,10然而,2017年1月,监管变化需要实时、,脓毒症的前瞻性鉴定和标准化临床医生文件。11需要该文件来记录初步评估、对脓毒症体征和症状的识别,以及在治疗后6小时内验证对患者脓毒症症状和体征的重新评估。在纪念斯隆-凯特琳癌症中心(MSKCC),最初设置警报算法,使同时出现三种异常生命体征、新的(24小时内)精神状态改变或出现两种异常生命迹象的患者触发警报。MSKCC有一个独特的肿瘤患者群体,患者的体征和症状或治疗不良反应通常与败血症指标相似。设置败血症警报是为了帮助管理他们复杂的医疗需求,并帮助识别可能的早期败血症。根据记录生命体征/精神状态变化的人员,护士或患者护理技术人员随后通过EHR中的即时弹出窗口获得警报,联系负责的临床医生,对患者进行可能的败血症筛查。这导致临床医生对可能的败血症的认识延迟;其中,该算法是基于具有限制因素的护理文档工作流程设计的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nursing Critical Care
Nursing Critical Care Nursing-Critical Care Nursing
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信