护士对恶化患者观察的优先反应(PRONTO):一项实用的集群随机对照试验,评估促进干预对临床恶化的识别和反应的有效性

Tracey K Bucknall, Julie Considine, Gillian Harvey, Ian D Graham, Jo Rycroft-Malone, Imogen Mitchell, Bridey Saultry, Jennifer J Watts, Mohammadreza Mohebbi, Shalika Bohingamu Mudiyanselage, Mojtaba Lotfaliany, Alison Hutchinson
{"title":"护士对恶化患者观察的优先反应(PRONTO):一项实用的集群随机对照试验,评估促进干预对临床恶化的识别和反应的有效性","authors":"Tracey K Bucknall, Julie Considine, Gillian Harvey, Ian D Graham, Jo Rycroft-Malone, Imogen Mitchell, Bridey Saultry, Jennifer J Watts, Mohammadreza Mohebbi, Shalika Bohingamu Mudiyanselage, Mojtaba Lotfaliany, Alison Hutchinson","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most hospitals use physiological signs to trigger an urgent clinical review. We investigated whether facilitation could improve nurses' vital sign measurement, interpretation, treatment and escalation of care for deteriorating patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, we randomised 36 inpatient wards at four acute hospitals to receive standard clinical practice guideline (CPG) dissemination to ward staff (n=18) or facilitated implementation for 6 months following standard dissemination (n=18). Expert, hospital and ward facilitators tailored facilitation techniques to promote nurses' CPG adherence. Patient records were audited pre-intervention, 6 and 12 months post-intervention on randomly selected days. Escalation of care as per hospital policy was the primary outcome at 6 and 12 months after implementation. Patients, nurses and assessors were blinded to group assignment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 10 383 audits, improved escalation as per hospital policy was evident in the intervention group at 6 months (OR 1.47, 95% CI (1.06 to 2.04)) with a complete set of vital sign measurements sustained at 12 months (OR 1.22, 95% CI (1.02 to 1.47)). There were no significant differences in escalation of care as per hospital policy between study groups at 6 or 12 months post-intervention. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, a significant change from T0 in mean length of stay between groups at 12 months favoured the intervention group (-2.18 days, 95% CI (-3.53 to -0.82)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Multi-level facilitation significantly improved escalation as per hospital policy at 6 months in the intervention group that was not sustained at 12 months. The intervention group had increased vital sign measurement by nurses, as well as shorter lengths of stay for patients at 12 months. Further research is required to understand the dose of facilitation required to impact clinical practice behaviours and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>ACTRN12616000544471p.</p>","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"31 1","pages":"818-830"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9606509/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO): a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention on recognition and response to clinical deterioration.\",\"authors\":\"Tracey K Bucknall, Julie Considine, Gillian Harvey, Ian D Graham, Jo Rycroft-Malone, Imogen Mitchell, Bridey Saultry, Jennifer J Watts, Mohammadreza Mohebbi, Shalika Bohingamu Mudiyanselage, Mojtaba Lotfaliany, Alison Hutchinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013785\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most hospitals use physiological signs to trigger an urgent clinical review. We investigated whether facilitation could improve nurses' vital sign measurement, interpretation, treatment and escalation of care for deteriorating patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, we randomised 36 inpatient wards at four acute hospitals to receive standard clinical practice guideline (CPG) dissemination to ward staff (n=18) or facilitated implementation for 6 months following standard dissemination (n=18). Expert, hospital and ward facilitators tailored facilitation techniques to promote nurses' CPG adherence. Patient records were audited pre-intervention, 6 and 12 months post-intervention on randomly selected days. Escalation of care as per hospital policy was the primary outcome at 6 and 12 months after implementation. Patients, nurses and assessors were blinded to group assignment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 10 383 audits, improved escalation as per hospital policy was evident in the intervention group at 6 months (OR 1.47, 95% CI (1.06 to 2.04)) with a complete set of vital sign measurements sustained at 12 months (OR 1.22, 95% CI (1.02 to 1.47)). There were no significant differences in escalation of care as per hospital policy between study groups at 6 or 12 months post-intervention. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, a significant change from T0 in mean length of stay between groups at 12 months favoured the intervention group (-2.18 days, 95% CI (-3.53 to -0.82)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Multi-level facilitation significantly improved escalation as per hospital policy at 6 months in the intervention group that was not sustained at 12 months. The intervention group had increased vital sign measurement by nurses, as well as shorter lengths of stay for patients at 12 months. Further research is required to understand the dose of facilitation required to impact clinical practice behaviours and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>ACTRN12616000544471p.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality & Safety in Health Care\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"818-830\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9606509/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality & Safety in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013785\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景大多数医院使用生理体征来触发紧急临床审查。我们调查了便利化是否可以改善护士对病情恶化患者的生命体征测量、解释、治疗和护理升级。方法在一项实用的集群随机对照试验中,我们对四家急性病医院的36个住院病房进行了随机分组,以接受向病房工作人员(n=18)传播的标准临床实践指南(CPG),或在标准传播后促进实施6个月(n=18。专家、医院和病房辅导员量身定制了促进技巧,以促进护士坚持CPG。干预前对患者记录进行了审计,分别为6和12 干预后数月,在随机选择的日子。根据医院政策升级护理是6岁和12岁时的主要结果 实施后数月。患者、护士和评估员对分组分配不知情。通过意向治疗进行分析。10的结果 383项审计,根据医院政策,干预组在6个月时明显改善了病情升级(OR 1.47,95% CI(1.06至2.04)),并在12个月时进行一整套生命体征测量(OR 1.22,95% CI(1.02-1.47)。根据医院政策,研究组在6岁或12岁时的护理升级没有显著差异 干预后数月。在对患者和医院特征进行调整后,干预组在12个月时的平均住院时间与T0相比发生了显著变化(−2.18 天,95% CI(-3.53至-0.82)。干预组增加了护士对生命体征的测量,并缩短了患者在12个月时的住院时间。需要进一步的研究来了解影响临床实践行为和患者结果所需的促进剂量。试验注册号ACTRN12616000544471p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO): a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention on recognition and response to clinical deterioration.

Background: Most hospitals use physiological signs to trigger an urgent clinical review. We investigated whether facilitation could improve nurses' vital sign measurement, interpretation, treatment and escalation of care for deteriorating patients.

Methods: In a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, we randomised 36 inpatient wards at four acute hospitals to receive standard clinical practice guideline (CPG) dissemination to ward staff (n=18) or facilitated implementation for 6 months following standard dissemination (n=18). Expert, hospital and ward facilitators tailored facilitation techniques to promote nurses' CPG adherence. Patient records were audited pre-intervention, 6 and 12 months post-intervention on randomly selected days. Escalation of care as per hospital policy was the primary outcome at 6 and 12 months after implementation. Patients, nurses and assessors were blinded to group assignment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.

Results: From 10 383 audits, improved escalation as per hospital policy was evident in the intervention group at 6 months (OR 1.47, 95% CI (1.06 to 2.04)) with a complete set of vital sign measurements sustained at 12 months (OR 1.22, 95% CI (1.02 to 1.47)). There were no significant differences in escalation of care as per hospital policy between study groups at 6 or 12 months post-intervention. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, a significant change from T0 in mean length of stay between groups at 12 months favoured the intervention group (-2.18 days, 95% CI (-3.53 to -0.82)).

Conclusion: Multi-level facilitation significantly improved escalation as per hospital policy at 6 months in the intervention group that was not sustained at 12 months. The intervention group had increased vital sign measurement by nurses, as well as shorter lengths of stay for patients at 12 months. Further research is required to understand the dose of facilitation required to impact clinical practice behaviours and patient outcomes.

Trial registration number: ACTRN12616000544471p.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
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