Time to detection of serious adverse events by continuous vital sign monitoring versus clinical practice.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1111/aas.14541
Marie Said Vang Jensen, Vibeke Ramsgaard Eriksen, Søren Straarup Rasmussen, Christian Sylvest Meyhoff, Eske Kvanner Aasvang
{"title":"Time to detection of serious adverse events by continuous vital sign monitoring versus clinical practice.","authors":"Marie Said Vang Jensen, Vibeke Ramsgaard Eriksen, Søren Straarup Rasmussen, Christian Sylvest Meyhoff, Eske Kvanner Aasvang","doi":"10.1111/aas.14541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuous vital sign monitoring detects far more severe vital sign deviations (SVDs) than intermittent clinical rounds, and deviations are to some extent related to subsequent serious adverse events (SAEs). Early detection of SAEs is pivotal to allow for effective interventions but the time relationship between detection of SAEs by continuous vital sign monitoring versus clinical practice is not well-described at the general ward.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To quantify the time difference between detection of SAEs by continuous vital sign monitoring and clinical suspicion of deterioration (CSD) in major abdominal surgery patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five hundred and five patients had their vital signs continuously monitored in combination with usual clinical practice consisting of National Early Warning Score assessments at least every 8'th hour, assessments during rounds, and other kinds of staff-patient interactions. The primary outcome was the time difference between the first chart note of CSD versus the first SVD, detected by continuous vital sign monitoring, in patients with a subsequent confirmed SAE during or up to 48 h after end of continuous vital sign monitoring.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 505 continuously monitored patients, 142 patients had a combination of both postoperative SAE, CSD and SVD, and thus were included in the primary analysis. The median time from the first SVD to SAE was 42.8 h (interquartile range 19.8-72.1 h) compared to 13 minutes (interquartile range - 4.8 to 3.5 h) for CSD with a median difference of 48.1 h (95% confidence interval 43.0-54.8 h), p-value < .001.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Continuous vital sign monitoring detects signs of oncoming SAEs in the form of SVD hours before CSD, potentially allowing for earlier and more effective treatments to reduce the extent of SAEs.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":"e14541"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14541","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Continuous vital sign monitoring detects far more severe vital sign deviations (SVDs) than intermittent clinical rounds, and deviations are to some extent related to subsequent serious adverse events (SAEs). Early detection of SAEs is pivotal to allow for effective interventions but the time relationship between detection of SAEs by continuous vital sign monitoring versus clinical practice is not well-described at the general ward.

Aim: To quantify the time difference between detection of SAEs by continuous vital sign monitoring and clinical suspicion of deterioration (CSD) in major abdominal surgery patients.

Methods: Five hundred and five patients had their vital signs continuously monitored in combination with usual clinical practice consisting of National Early Warning Score assessments at least every 8'th hour, assessments during rounds, and other kinds of staff-patient interactions. The primary outcome was the time difference between the first chart note of CSD versus the first SVD, detected by continuous vital sign monitoring, in patients with a subsequent confirmed SAE during or up to 48 h after end of continuous vital sign monitoring.

Results: Out of the 505 continuously monitored patients, 142 patients had a combination of both postoperative SAE, CSD and SVD, and thus were included in the primary analysis. The median time from the first SVD to SAE was 42.8 h (interquartile range 19.8-72.1 h) compared to 13 minutes (interquartile range - 4.8 to 3.5 h) for CSD with a median difference of 48.1 h (95% confidence interval 43.0-54.8 h), p-value < .001.

Conclusion: Continuous vital sign monitoring detects signs of oncoming SAEs in the form of SVD hours before CSD, potentially allowing for earlier and more effective treatments to reduce the extent of SAEs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
连续生命体征监测与临床实践发现严重不良事件的时间对比。
背景:连续生命体征监测发现的严重生命体征偏差(SVDs)远多于间歇性临床查房发现的严重生命体征偏差,而生命体征偏差在一定程度上与随后发生的严重不良事件(SAEs)有关。目的:量化腹部大手术患者通过连续生命体征监测发现 SAE 与临床怀疑病情恶化(CSD)之间的时间差:方法:对 55 名患者进行连续生命体征监测,同时结合常规临床实践,包括至少每 8 小时进行一次国家预警评分评估、查房时进行评估以及其他形式的医护人员与患者互动。主要结果是,在连续生命体征监测期间或结束后 48 小时内,在随后发生确诊 SAE 的患者中,通过连续生命体征监测发现的第一份 CSD 病历记录与第一份 SVD 之间的时间差:在连续监测的 505 名患者中,有 142 名患者同时出现术后 SAE、CSD 和 SVD,因此被纳入主要分析。从第一次SVD到SAE的中位时间为42.8小时(四分位距为19.8-72.1小时),而CSD为13分钟(四分位距为-4.8-3.5小时),中位时间差为48.1小时(95%置信区间为43.0-54.8小时),P值小于0.001:连续生命体征监测能在 CSD 发生前数小时检测到即将发生 SVD 形式的 SAE 的迹象,从而有可能更早、更有效地进行治疗,降低 SAE 的程度。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
期刊最新文献
Effect of intraoperative methadone in robot-assisted cystectomy on postoperative opioid requirements: A randomized clinical trial. Epidural analgesia versus systemic opioids for postoperative pain management after VATS: Protocol for a systematic review. Time from pain assessment to opioid treatment in the Danish emergency departments-A multicenter cohort study. Viscoelastic testing of fibrinolytic capacity in acutely infected critically ill patients: Protocol for a scoping review. Does cytochrome 2D6 genotype affect the analgesic efficacy of codeine after ambulatory surgery? Prospective trial in 987 adults.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1