How Can Vital Signs Signal a Decline in a Patient's Health
PLoS One. 2019; fourteen(1): e0210875.
The value of vital sign trends in predicting and monitoring clinical deterioration: A systematic review
Idar Johan Brekke
ane Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Lars Håland Puntervoll
1 Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Kingdom of denmark
Peter Banking concern Pedersen
i Section of Clinical Research, Academy of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
two Department of Emergency Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Kingdom of denmark
John Kellett
3 Section of Emergency Medicine, Hospital of Due south West Jutland, Esbjerg, Denmark
four Section of Regional Health Inquiry, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Mikkel Brabrand
two Department of Emergency Medicine, Odense University Infirmary, Odense, Kingdom of denmark
3 Section of Emergency Medicine, Hospital of South West Jutland, Esbjerg, Denmark
4 Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Shane Patman, Editor
Received 2022 Jul 24; Accepted 2022 Jan three.
- Supplementary Materials
-
S1 Appendix: PRISMA 2009 checklist. (DOCX)
GUID: 714FBA62-6324-416F-944B-5CC8923AEF89
S2 Appendix: Search strategy. (DOCX)
GUID: 84051E0D-5BBE-47BE-A290-BC8459A86A06
S3 Appendix: Citation tracking. (DOCX)
GUID: 9650C222-35C2-4F4E-886B-A9599ABB5F7B
S4 Appendix: Full-text screening. (DOCX)
GUID: ED3CA8C3-0B9A-40E5-BA8F-DDF47A39EA1B
S5 Appendix: Gamble of bias cess. (DOCX)
GUID: 397CF6E3-8943-45A9-9528-ADFBCD8A2B5A
- Information Availability Argument
-
Protocol for this systematic review is registered in PROSPERO: CRD42017080303 Bachelor from: http://www.crd.york.ac.great britain/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080303. All other relevant information are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Abstract
Background
Vital signs, i.e. respiratory charge per unit, oxygen saturation, pulse, blood pressure and temperature, are regarded every bit an essential part of monitoring hospitalized patients. Changes in vital signs prior to clinical deterioration are well documented and early detection of preventable outcomes is key to timely intervention. Despite their role in clinical practice, how to all-time monitor and interpret them is still unclear.
Objective
To evaluate the ability of vital sign trends to predict clinical deterioration in patients hospitalized with astute illness.
Data Sources
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL were searched in December 2017.
Study Selection
Studies examining intermittently monitored vital sign trends in acutely ill developed patients on hospital wards and in emergency departments. Outcomes representing clinical deterioration were of interest.
Data Extraction
Performed separately by 2 authors using a preformed extraction canvas.
Results
Of seven,366 references screened, only ii were eligible for inclusion. Both were retrospective cohort studies without controls. Ane examined the accuracy of different vital sign trend models using detached-time survival analysis in 269,999 admissions. One included 44,531 medical admissions examining tendency in Vitalpac Early on Warning Score weighted vital signs. They stated that vital sign trends increased detection of clinical deterioration. Disquisitional appraisal was performed using evaluation tools. The studies had moderate gamble of bias, and a low certainty of evidence. Additionally, 4 studies examining trends in early on warning scores, otherwise eligible for inclusion, were evaluated.
Conclusions
This review illustrates a lack of research in intermittently monitored vital sign trends. The included studies, although heterogeneous and imprecise, indicates an added value of trend analysis. This highlights the need for well-controlled trials to thoroughly assess the research question.
Introduction
Vital signs, including respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, pulse and temperature, are the simplest, cheapest and probably almost important data gathered on hospitalized patients [1]. However, despite being introduced into clinical practice more than a century ago, surprisingly few attempts accept been made to quantify their clinical operation [2]. In the last few decades, vital signs accept get an surface area of agile enquiry [one] and numerous studies accept reported that changes in vital signs occur several hours prior to a serious adverse consequence [3–7].
Today, vital signs play an of import role in emergency departments (ED) and on the wards, to determine patients at risk of deterioration [half-dozen–eleven]. Even though it is accurately predicted by vital sign changes, clinical deterioration often goes unnoticed, or is not detected until information technology is too belatedly to treat [12–15]. This is mainly caused by inadequate recording of vital signs or equally a result of an inappropriate response to aberrant values [i, 14–16]. Among nurses and doctors there is insufficient knowledge and appreciation of vital sign changes and their implications for patient care [17–20]. The importance of monitoring vital signs in clinical practise is indisputable, but how to best monitor and interpret them and how ofttimes they should be measured is still unclear [21, 22].
This review searched the literature for studies that explicitly tried to make up one's mind and quantify the increase or decrease in chance associated with changes of intermittently measured vital signs. We, therefore, confined our search only to those papers that measured vital signs intermittently, and not to those that used continuous monitoring and novel wearable engineering science
Methods
Objective
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the ability of intermittent vital sign trends to predict clinical deterioration in acutely ill patients in hospital.
Protocol and registration
The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42017080303. Both the protocol and the article are developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines (S1 Appendix) [23, 24].
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria: all studies based on intermittent vital sign trends in acutely ill adult patients on hospital wards and in EDs, including all observational studies and controlled trials assessing prognosis. Trends were defined equally the changes between two or more sequent measurements of vital sign values, with a minimum of three hours and a maximum of 24 hours between measurements. Manufactures in English, Danish, Norwegian or Swedish were included.
Exclusion criteria: case series and instance reports, studies on patients with specific atmospheric condition or with less than 100 participants, or patients direct admitted to ICU. All studies reporting trends in continuous monitoring were excluded.
Outcomes: in-infirmary mortality or mortality up to xxx days after hospital discharge, transfer to ICU, cardiac arrest, calls to a rapid response system, or whatsoever other outcome reported that was associated with clinical deterioration.
Information sources
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL on Oct 26th 2017. The databases were searched without time restrictions or filters for language and study design. The search was updated on Dec 28th 2017, adding the term "trajectory" to the original search (S2 Appendix). PROSPERO was searched for relevant ongoing or recently completed systematic reviews, last on December 18th. All studies assessed in total-text were screened for relevant citing articles using Scopus and Web of Science (S3 Appendix). Experts in the field were contacted to identify additional relevant studies.
Search
The search strategy was adult through a serial of preliminary searches using a broad range of relevant keywords and thesauri, including; vital sign, deterioration and trend (S2 Appendix). An information specialist from the Medical Research Library at Academy of Southern Denmark reviewed the search strategy before the concluding searches were conducted.
Study choice
Reference handling and indistinguishable screening was performed using EndNote and Covidence. After removal of duplicates, titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors (LHP and IJB). Disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved through discussion. In case of continued disagreement, inclusion was decided past a tertiary author.
Eligible studies were read in full length past LHP and IJB and separately assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria decided by all authors (S4 Appendix). Disagreements were discussed with the other authors, and consensus decided inclusion.
Data collection process
Data from included studies were extracted separately by LHP and IJB using a preformed data extraction sheet. Collection included: study characteristics, settings, demographics, intervention details and outcomes.
Run a risk of bias in private studies
Critical appraisal was performed in duplicates by the ii reviewers. Neither of the authors were blinded. The Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for prognostic studies [25] was used to evaluate the included studies. The risk of bias was rated within six domains: written report participation, study attrition, prognostic factor measurement, outcome measurement, study confounding and statistical analysis and reporting, assessing the take chances of bias as either high, moderate or low.
Adventure of bias beyond studies
The certainty of evidence was evaluated inspired by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment (GRADE) [26]. GRADE is originally designed to evaluate the certainty of evidence in randomized controlled trials. The approach assesses the strength of the body of prove within five domains: within-study risk of bias (QUIPS), directness, heterogeneity, precision of outcome estimates and take chances of publication bias. An overall judgement regarding the certainty of the evidence was awarded for each examined consequence, equally high, moderate, depression or very depression. Equally our study was observational by nature and did non accost effect, prove was non upgraded based on standard criteria. LHP and IJB evaluated the studies independently. Results were compared and discussed with the other authors.
Results
Study selection and characteristics
The final search yielded 7,366 studies after removal of duplicates. However, 7,340 were deemed irrelevant (Fig i). Twenty-half-dozen were read in full-text and another 9 were added through other sources: seven through citation tracking [27–33] and two additional studies recommended past experts [34, 35]. Of the thirty-five studies assessed, two were eligible for inclusion. Details of the study selection are presented in Fig 1.
Flowchart of study selection.
Abbreviation: EWS–early on warning score.
We excluded 30-3 studies assessed in full-text. Twenty-five, equally they did non fulfil our eligibility criteria; fourteen did not examine trend, seven focused on trends in clinical scoring systems and three incorporated elements of vital sign trends in multi-parameter risk stratification models, just did not present sufficient data to enable analysis. Five studies examined trends in vital signs or EWS in patients with specific conditions and four studies were excluded due to wrong study design. Reasons for exclusion and details are given in S4 Appendix.
Nosotros establish ii cohort studies eligible for inclusion. One including 269,999 medical and surgical admissions in v hospitals in Illinois, by Churpek et al. [36] and one including 44,531 medical admissions to a Canadian regional hospital, by Kellett et al. [37]. Both were retrospective analyses of vital signs collected in electronic medical records that included: respiratory charge per unit, middle rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, temperature and oxygen saturation.
Churpek et al. aimed to compare the accurateness of unlike methods of modelling vital sign trends for detecting clinical deterioration on the wards using discrete-time survival assay. Six different trend models were tested against the predictive value of current vital signs alone (Table 1). Transfers to intensive care unit (ICU), cardiac arrests and deaths on the ward were analysed every bit a blended effect. Vital signs were averaged for each iv-hour time block, and the variables at the beginning on each interval used to predict risk of deterioration during that time block.
Table i
Written report characteristics.
| Report | Design and setting | Participants | Interventions | Outcomes | Results |
| Churpek et al. [36] 2016 United States Conflicts of interest: Declared | Retrospective cohort study All ward admissions at five hospitals in Illinois betwixt: November 2008—January 2013 Assay of manually collected vital signs, documented electronically:
| All 269,999 ward admissions Age: lx years (SD 20) Women: sixty% White: 52% Length of stay: NS | Vital signs collected on average every iv h analysed using discrete-fourth dimension survival analysis. Variables at the beginning on each four h interval used to predict risk of event during that fourth dimension block. Trend variables investigated:
60% of the dataset used model design, 40% for validation of accurateness. Univariate analysis of current vital sign and the different trend models, followed by bivariate modelling including both electric current value and trend value. | Evolution of critical illness on the wards. Composite outcome, sixteen,452 (half-dozen.1%):
Only showtime event examined. In case of multiple ward stays during same admission, each stay analysed separately. Each ICU-stay analysed separately. | Univariate analysis, AUC:
Bivariate analysis, AUC (95% CI NS):
|
| Kellett et al. [37] 2015 Canada Conflicts of interest: None alleged | Retrospective cohort study All medical admissions at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre in Ontario between: January 1st 2005—June 30th 2011 Assay of manually collected vital signs, documented electronically:
| 44,531 medical admissions of eighteen,531 patients Historic period: 67.five (SD 17.9) Gender: NS Length of stay: ix.5 days (SD 14.v) | Each individual vital sign assigned a weighted ViEWS-score and averaged for every 24 h of admission. Average number of measurements per patient each day:
Change in ViEWS weighted score average between first 5 and last five days of admission. | In-hospital mortality: 2067 (4.half-dozen%) died within 30 days of admission. Historic period: 74.5 (SD 14.5) Length of stay: 8.1 days (SD 7.2) | Survived xxx days:
Died in hospital (inside 30 days):
|
Kellett et al. aimed to assess whether changes in vital signs would enable detection of in-hospital bloodshed. They assigned a weighted Vitalpac Early Alert Score (ViEWS) to each vital sign and averaged the score for each xx-four hour flow of access. Change in mean score betwixt the beginning five and the last 5 days of admission were and so compared for survivors and non-survivors. Further study characteristics are given in Table ane.
Risk of bias inside included studies
None of the studies accounted for loss to follow-up and no clear assessment of confounders were stated. Statistical analyses varied substantially and the overall risk of bias was rated equally moderate for both studies, S5 Appendix.
Risk of bias across studies
As both studies are observational, the certainty of the evidence was regarded equally low. With only one article per issue, inconsistency was not evaluated. We plant no serious indirectness in the studies and publication bias was not suspected. Therefore, Churpek et al. received an overall low rating, while Kellett et al. was downgraded to very low, due to serious imprecision. Encounter S5 Appendix for full description.
Results of individual studies
Churpek et al. performed univariate analysis of the different trend models and the current value, followed past bivariate analysis combining the trend models with the electric current value. Through univariate analysis, they found respiratory charge per unit to be the all-time predictor of deterioration when using the current value, AUC 0.70 (95% CI 0.70–0.lxx). Standard deviation of respiratory rate was constitute to be more authentic than the current value (AUC 0.71 (95% CI 0.71–0.71)). Bivariate analyses increased accuracy for all vital signs compared to the current value alone, but the optimal method varied for the dissimilar vital signs. The model including the current respiratory charge per unit and the maximum rate prior to current was the most the authentic predictor (AUC 0.73). When averaging the change in accuracy for all vital signs, vital sign slope resulted in the greatest increment (AUC improvement 0.013), while the change from previous value resulted in an average subtract of model accuracy (AUC -0.002).
Analysing trajectories in ViEWS weighted vital signs for the outset five and the last five days of admission, Kellett et al. found that the score for respiratory rate increased the most in non-survivors (0.92 (SD 1.22)–1.46 (SD 1.34)) and decreased the most in survivors (0.24 (SD 0.71)–0.10 (SD 0.49)). Combining respiratory rate with other vital signs was not more than accurately associated with in-hospital mortality. Due to large standard deviations, none of the vital sign trends were statistically significant.
The heterogeneity between the 2 studies was high. Apart from methodology and outcomes, the cohorts differed in several ways: Churpek et al. looked at both medical and surgical ward patients, with an unspecified number of elective surgical patients. Boilerplate age was 60 years and in-hospital mortality was 1.0%. Kellett et al. looked at medical admissions, with an boilerplate age of 67.5 years and an in-hospital mortality of 4.6%, Table 1.
The literature search as well identified vii studies on trends in EWS. The results of 4 studies, otherwise eligible for inclusion, were evaluated and summarized in Table 2. The remaining 3 studies were based on data from the same accomplice every bit Kellett et al [37].
Tabular array 2
Studies on trends in early warning scores.
| Study | Blueprint and setting | Participants | Interventions | Outcomes | Resultsa , b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groarke et al. [38] 2008 Ireland | Prospective single heart cohort study of consecutive admissions over a xxx-day menstruum. | 225 medical admissions between 8:00 and xix:00. Mean age: 64.7 (SD xix.1) 116 male person:109 female person | EWS calculated upon arrival and transfer from the MAU to the wards. On boilerplate afterwards 5 hours. EWS: Vital signs and mental country. |
| Patients with an improvement in score prior to transfer had the lowest run a risk of reaching whatsoever of the combined outcomes (OR two.56, CI 1.11 to 5.89, p = 0.028). |
| Kellett et al. [39] 2011 Ireland | Prospective single centre cohort study of consecutive medical admissions over a one year flow. | 1165 medical admissions with two reported SCS. Mean historic period: 65.7 (SD eighteen.6) | SCS calculated upon inflow and the post-obit day, in average 25 hours (SD 15.8) apart. SCS: Vital signs, mental state, ECG, specific symptoms and prior weather. |
| Increases in SCS the twenty-four hour period after admission was associated with a tenfold increment ((10% vs. one.ane%, OR 10.1, p<0.001) of in-infirmary mortality. Low SCS take a chance patients were only as probable to have a SCS increment as high risk patients. |
| Kellett et al. [29] 2013 Canada | Retrospective single center cohort study of surgical admissions over a half-dozen year menstruum. | xv,230 patients with two or three (xiii,098) complete sets of vital signs collected inside starting time 24 hours of admission. Mean age: 55.8 (SD 18.7) | Changes in the first 3 abbreviated ViEWS recordings. In boilerplate 6–12 hours apart. Abbreviated ViEWS: Vital signs. |
| Patients with an initial score of ≥ 3 had a significantly higher overall in-hospital mortality (p<0.0001). Of these patients, those with a lower second score had a significantly lower in-infirmary mortality than those with an unchanged score (p<0.001). |
| Wang et. al. [xl] 2017 Usa | Retrospective single middle cohort study of consecutive RRT activations within 48h of access to hospital over a 9 month period. | 161 RRT activations during the first 48 hours of admission. 0–12 hours: xx,five% 12–24 hours: 29,8% 24–48 hours: 49,7% Mean historic period: 64 (SD xx) 104 female:57 male | Functional status, comorbidity, and severity of illness (MEWS and APACHE-2 scoring systems). MEWS: Vital signs, mental state, urine output APACHE-2: Vital signs, mental state, paraclinical measures. |
| MEWS and APACHE-2 scores were higher at the fourth dimension of RRT activation compared to scores at infirmary admission (p<0.0001), but was not associated with increased likelihood of ICU-consultation or acceptance. |
Discussion
This systematic review looked at trends in intermittently monitored vital signs and identified two studies eligible for inclusion. Both examined intermittent vital sign trends as an independent predictor of clinical deterioration. Although largely heterogeneous, with a low certainty of evidence, they suggested trends to exist associated with deterioration.
Churpek et al. found respiratory charge per unit to be the most accurate predictor, both for electric current value and when adding trend models. The nearly authentic model varied between the vital signs. Although trend statistically increased model accuracy for all vital signs, the improvements were considered pocket-sized. Kellett et al. suggested a correlation between increasing ViEWS weighted vital signs and in-infirmary mortality. Similarly to Churpek et al., they constitute respiratory charge per unit to be best associated with result, with the largest increase in score for non-survivors and decrease for survivors. All the same, due to large standard deviations, their findings were not statistically significant.
In essence, both studies suggest that more precise prognostic data tin be obtained from changes in vital signs if they undergo manipulation. Kellett et al suggested that the values should be weighted, and Churpek et al found that the difference from the current and previous value was less valuable than the vital sign slope, vital sign variability, and the most deranged values since admission. Their findings too illustrates the lack of consensus in what constitutes trends, and how to best interpret them.
Considering vital signs cardinal role in daily clinical practice, their results, although but suggestive, should be of interest to clinicians caring for patients on wards or in EDs. A lot of effort is going into developing continuous monitoring on the assumption that the trends information technology will reveal volition exist clinically valuable and superior to intermittent monitoring [41]. Although because the technology promising, three recent systematic reviews did not find sufficient prove in to back up the implementation of routinely continuous monitoring of vital signs in general wards [42–44]. Results of this systematic review advise that combining the widespread apply of electronic healthcare systems to record intermittently monitored vital signs with trend analysis could better the prediction of deterioration prior to a serious agin consequence and help direct limited resources towards the patients at risk.
Every bit illustrated by this review, there is an credible lack of loftier quality evidence regarding trends in intermittently monitored vital signs. The studies included are retrospective analyses of pre-existing cohorts, without command groups, and with complete heterogeneity. Thus, they have a depression (or very low) certainty of evidence. Interestingly, both studies found respiratory charge per unit to be best associated with clinical course, a standpoint receiving a growing support [i, 44, 45]. Currently, there is no reliable and convenient way to evaluate respiratory rate, but recent technological advances will shortly enable automated monitoring of respiratory charge per unit [2, 44], and can prove to be a major advance in monitoring. Ultimately, both trends in vital signs in general and respiratory rate in detail, should be subjected to evaluation through well-controlled prospective multicentre cohort studies.
Several studies examining trajectories of intermittently monitored vital signs were not eligible for inclusion (S4 Appendix). These consisted of; risk stratification models with elements of vital sign trends, trends in EWS and in patients with specific weather, including; cardiac arrest [46], advanced stage of cancer [34], acute respiratory status [47], repeated emergency team activations [48] and normotensive ED patients [31]. Although non subject for inclusion, they are mentioned to give an account of the total number of studies on vital sign trends identified by the review.
Too, studies on trends in EWS, otherwise meeting the inclusion criteria, are listed in Table two, in order to make the review more informative. They illustrate a potential correlation between trends and clinical deterioration. As observational studies with small sample sizes and low number of events, their findings should exist interpreted with caution. They were all evaluated to have a moderate run a risk of bias and a very low certainty of evidence.
Still, there are multiple limitations to such run a risk stratification models. In a contempo article, Baker & Gerdin [49] discussed the clinical usefulness of the large number of prediction models developed for use in critical care. They emphasised the current focus on trying to optimise the precision of these models, rather than testing the operation of the models to existent-earth interventions and their impact on outcomes. Similarly, Pedersen et al. [10] highlighted the need to evaluate the endpoints currently used to validate these predictive models (east.g. ICU-transfer, cardiac arrest and in-hospital bloodshed). They argued for the importance of developing systems that specifically can identify patients who are salvageable, if provided with optimal handling and care.
Disappointingly, just two studies were institute eligible for inclusion in this review of intermittently monitored vital sign trends. Still, the fact that at that place is lilliputian or no high quality evidence supporting trends in vital signs and the myriads of scoring systems adult to the ways of predicting clinical deterioration, should be an essential contribution to prove based exercise.
Strengths
The search strategy was developed for a loftier sensitivity, with the aim of identifying all studies examining trend, without filtering for fourth dimension or language. An information specialist reviewed the search strategy earlier the last searches were conducted. Merely studies examining continuous monitoring were excluded on time criteria, in the abstruse screening. Hence, changing the minimum time to i hour would not yield any farther eligible studies. Reference tracking and outreach to relevant experts did not identify any other eligible studies that were not identified past the original search.
Limitations
This review only descriptively analysed the eligible studies identified and did not quantify data or perform a meta-analysis. Due to the wide applicability of the search terms "vital signs" and "trend", just a small-scale number of the articles were deemed relevant and assessed in total text. To reflect the clinical ward setting, the protocol for the review narrowed the inclusion criteria to studies analysing trends with a minimum of 3 hours and a maximum of 24 hours between measurements [21, 22]. The evidence supporting measurement frequency is limited at best, and as a event, no studies were excluded on this criterion alone during abstract screening. Apart from reference tracking and expert outreach, attempts to pursue grayness literature were non fabricated.
Conclusions
The ii eligible studies identified suggest that trend analysis of intermittent vital signs would increase the accuracy for detection of clinical deterioration on general wards and in EDs. Even so, the external validity of these findings is challenging to test–and there is a need to shift the focus towards clinical feasibility. Furthermore, the results of this review show there is no consensus on how to best analyse trends. Given that trend-models are externally validated through well-controlled prospective multicentre cohort studies, authors of this review, consider them promising and welcome as a valuable addition to clinical decision support.
Supporting data
S1 Appendix
PRISMA 2009 checklist.
(DOCX)
S2 Appendix
Search strategy.
(DOCX)
S3 Appendix
Citation tracking.
(DOCX)
S4 Appendix
Full-text screening.
(DOCX)
S5 Appendix
Risk of bias assessment.
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the information specialists at the Medical Research Library at Academy of Southern Denmark for assist with the search strategy, Dr. Daanyaal Wasim for his suggestions during revision and the experts that responded to our request for additional literature.
Funding Statement
The author received no specific funding for this work.
References
i. Kellett J, Sebat F. Make vital signs great again–A telephone call for activeness. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;45(Supplement C):xiii–ix. 10.1016/j.ejim.2017.09.018. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
ii. Kellett J. The Assessment and Interpretation of Vital Signs In: DeVita MA, Hillman K, Bellomo R, Odell Grand, Jones DA, Winters BD, et al., editors. Textbook of Rapid Response Systems: Concept and Implementation. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 63–85. [Google Scholar]
iii. Kause J, Smith G, Prytherch D, Parr K, Flabouris A, Hillman K. A comparison of Antecedents to Cardiac Arrests, Deaths and EMergency Intensive care Admissions in Australia and New Zealand, and the United Kingdom—the ACADEMIA study. Resuscitation. 2004;62(three):275–82. ten.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.05.016. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Buist Chiliad, Bernard S, Nguyen Idiot box, Moore G, Anderson J. Association between clinically abnormal observations and subsequent in-hospital bloodshed: a prospective study. Resuscitation. 2004;62(2):137–41. ten.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.03.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Hillman KM, Bristow PJ, Chey T, Daffurn K, Jacques T, Norman SL, et al. Antecedents to hospital deaths. Intern Med J. 2001;31(6):343–8. 10.1046/j.1445-5994.2001.00077.10 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
vi. Henriksen DP, Brabrand M, Lassen AT. Prognosis and risk factors for deterioration in patients admitted to a medical emergency department. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e94649 Epub 2014/04/eleven. ten.1371/journal.pone.0094649 . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Barfod C, Lauritzen MMP, Danker JK, Sölétormos One thousand, Forberg JL, Berlac PA, et al. Abnormal vital signs are strong predictors for intensive care unit admission and in-hospital mortality in adults triaged in the emergency section—a prospective accomplice written report. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012;20(1):28 10.1186/1757-7241-twenty-28 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
viii. Ljunggren Thou, Castren 1000, Nordberg G, Kurland Fifty. The association between vital signs and mortality in a retrospective accomplice study of an unselected emergency section population. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016;24:21 x.1186/s13049-016-0213-8 . [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Farrohknia North, Castrén K, Ehrenberg A, Lind Fifty, Oredsson Due south, Jonsson H, et al. Emergency Department Triage Scales and Their Components: A Systematic Review of the Scientific Evidence. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011;nineteen(ane):42 x.1186/1757-7241-19-42 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
x. Pedersen NE, Oestergaard D, Lippert A. Terminate points for validating early alert scores in the context of rapid response systems: a Delphi consensus written report. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2016;60(v):616–22. 10.1111/aas.12668 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Cardona-Morrell 1000, Prgomet M, Lake R, Nicholson M, Harrison R, Long J, et al. Vital signs monitoring and nurse–patient interaction: A qualitative observational report of hospital practice. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;56(Supplement C):9–xvi. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.12.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Franklin C, Mathew J. Developing strategies to prevent inhospital cardiac arrest: analyzing responses of physicians and nurses in the hours before the event. Crit Care Med. 1994;22(ii):244–seven. Epub 1994/02/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Sankey CB, McAvay G, Siner JM, Barsky CL, Chaudhry SI. "Deterioration to Door Fourth dimension": An Exploratory Analysis of Delays in Escalation of Intendance for Hospitalized Patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(8):895–900. Epub 2016/03/13. 10.1007/s11606-016-3654-x [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Smith LB, Banner L, Lozano D, Olney CM, Friedman B. Connected care: reducing errors through automated vital signs data upload. Comput Inform Nurs. 2009;27(5):318–23. Epub 2009/09/04. ten.1097/NCN.0b013e3181b21d65 . [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Leuvan CH, Mitchell I. Missed opportunities? An observational study of vital sign measurements. Crit Care Resusc. 2008;10(ii):111–15. Epub 2008/06/05. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xvi. Schmidt PE, Meredith P, Prytherch DR, Watson D, Watson V, Killen RM, et al. Bear upon of introducing an electronic physiological surveillance arrangement on hospital mortality. BMJ quality & prophylactic. 2015;24(1):10–20. Epub 2014/09/25. 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003073 . [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Chua WL, Mackey Due south, Ng EKC, Liaw SY. Front line nurses' experiences with deteriorating ward patients: a qualitative written report. Int Nurs Rev. 2013;60(4):501–9. 10.1111/inr.12061 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Hogan J. Why don't nurses monitor the respiratory rates of patients? Br J Nurs. 2006;fifteen(ix):489–92. Epub 2006/05/26. 10.12968/bjon.2006.15.9.21087 . [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xix. Wheatley I. The nursing practice of taking level 1 patient observations. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2006;22(2):115–21. 10.1016/j.iccn.2005.08.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
twenty. Smith GB, Poplett N. Knowledge of aspects of astute care in trainee doctors. Postgrad Med J. 2002;78(920):335–8. 10.1136/pmj.78.920.335 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Smith GB, Recio-Saucedo A, Griffiths P. The measurement frequency and completeness of vital signs in full general infirmary wards: An evidence free zone? Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;74:A1–A4. ten.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.07.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Yoder JC, Yuen TC, Churpek MM, Arora VM, Edelson DP. A prospective study of night vital sign monitoring frequency and adventure of clinical deterioration. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2013;173(16):1554–5. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.7791 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew Thousand, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2022 statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4(i):1 10.1186/2046-4053-4-ane [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA argument. BMJ. 2009;339 10.1136/bmj.b2535 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Hayden JA, Côté P, Bombardier C. Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(half-dozen):427–37. 10.7326/0003-4819-144-6-200603210-00010 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of prove and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6. 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.Advert [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Kellett J, Rasool Due south. The prediction of the in-hospital mortality of acutely ill medical patients by electrocardiogram (ECG) dispersion mapping compared with established hazard factors and predictive scores—a pilot study. Eur J Intern Med. 2011;22(four):394–8. Epub 2011/07/20. 10.1016/j.ejim.2011.01.013 . [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Kellett J, Woodworth S, Wang F, Huang W. Changes and their prognostic implications in the abbreviated Vitalpac early alert score (ViEWS) afterward admission to hospital of xviii,853 acutely ill medical patients. Resuscitation. 2013;84(ane):thirteen–20. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.08.331. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Kellett J, Wang F, Woodworth S, Huang W. Changes and their prognostic implications in the abbreviated VitalPAC Early on Warning Score (ViEWS) after admission to hospital of 18,827 surgical patients. Resuscitation. 2013;84(4):471–6. Epub 2012/12/12. ten.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.12.002 . [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Mao Y, Chen Y, Hackmann Grand, Chen One thousand, Lu C, Kollef Chiliad, et al., editors. Medical Data Mining for Early Deterioration Warning in General Hospital Wards. 2011 IEEE 11th International Briefing on Information Mining Workshops; 2011 11–11 Dec. 2011.
31. Puskarich MA, Nandi U, Long BG, Jones AE. Association between persistent tachycardia and tachypnea and in-hospital mortality amongst non-hypotensive emergency department patients admitted to the hospital. Clinical and experimental emergency medicine. 2017;iv(1):ii–ix. Epub 2017/04/25. ten.15441/ceem.16.144 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Quarterman CP, Thomas AN, McKenna M, McNamee R. Use of a patient information organisation to inspect the introduction of modified early alarm scoring. J Eval Clin Pract. 2005;xi(two):133–8. Epub 2005/04/09. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00513.10 . [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Wong J, Taljaard M, Forster AJ, van Walraven C. Does adding hazard-trends to survival models improve in-hospital bloodshed predictions? A cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):171 10.1186/1472-6963-xi-171 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Bruera S, Chisholm G, Santos RD, Crovador C, Bruera E, Hui D. Variations in Vital Signs in the Last Days of Life in Patients With Avant-garde Cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014;48(iv):510–7. x.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.10.019. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Goldstein BA, Chang TI, Winkelmayer WC. Classifying individuals based on a densely captured sequence of vital signs: An instance using repeated blood pressure measurements during hemodialysis treatment. J Biomed Inform. 2015;57(Supplement C):219–24. x.1016/j.jbi.2015.08.010. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Churpek MM, Adhikari R, Edelson DP. The value of vital sign trends for detecting clinical deterioration on the wards. Resuscitation. 2016;102:ane–5. Epub 2016/02/24. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.02.005 . [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Kellett J, Murray A, Woodworth Due south, Huang W. Trends in weighted vital signs and the clinical course of 44,531 acutely ill medical patients while in hospital. Astute Med. 2015;fourteen(1):3–nine. Epub 2015/03/07. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Groarke JD, Gallagher J, Stack J, Aftab A, Dwyer C, McGovern R, et al. Utilize of an admission early warning score to predict patient morbidity and mortality and treatment success. Emerg Med J. 2008;25(12):803–6. x.1136/emj.2007.051425 . [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Kellett J, Emmanuel A, Deane B. Who will be sicker in the morning? Changes in the Elementary Clinical Score the solar day later on admission and the subsequent outcomes of acutely ill unselected medical patients. Eur J Intern Med. 2011;22(iv):375–81. 10.1016/j.ejim.2011.03.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Wang J, Hahn SS, Kline M, Cohen RI. Early in-hospital clinical deterioration is not predicted past severity of illness, functional status, or comorbidity. Int J Gen Med. 2017;10:329–34. 10.2147/IJGM.S145933 . [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Cardona-Morrell M, Zimlichman E, Taenzer A. Continuous Monitoring for Early Detection of Deterioration on Full general Care Units In: DeVita MA, Hillman Grand, Bellomo R, Odell Thousand, Jones DA, Winters BD, et al., editors. Textbook of Rapid Response Systems: Concept and Implementation. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 277–87. [Google Scholar]
42. Cardona-Morrell M, Prgomet M, Turner RM, Nicholson M, Hillman K. Effectiveness of continuous or intermittent vital signs monitoring in preventing agin events on full general wards: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract. 2016;70(10):806–24. 10.1111/ijcp.12846 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Downey CL, Chapman S, Randell R, Brown JM, Jayne DG. The bear upon of continuous versus intermittent vital signs monitoring in hospitals: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;84:19–27. ten.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.04.013. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. van Loon Thousand, van Zaane B, Bosch EJ, Kalkman CJ, Peelen LM. Not-Invasive Continuous Respiratory Monitoring on General Hospital Wards: A Systematic Review. PLoS One. 2015;x(12):e0144626 10.1371/journal.pone.0144626 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Cretikos MA. Respiratory charge per unit: the neglected vital sign. The Medical journal of Australia. 2008;188(11):657–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Kim WY, Shin YJ, Lee JM, Huh JW, Koh Y, Lim CM, et al. Modified early warning score changes prior to cardiac abort in general wards. PLoS One. 2015;10 (half dozen) (no pagination)(e0130523). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Zimlichman Due east, Szyper-Kravitz M, Shinar Z, Klap T, Levkovich Due south, Unterman A, et al. Early recognition of acutely deteriorating patients in non-intensive intendance units: Assessment of an innovative monitoring technology. J Hosp Med. 2012;7(eight):628–33. x.1002/jhm.1963 . [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Yet Grand, Vanderlaan J, Brown C, Gordon Chiliad, Graham Yard, Holder C, et al. Predictors of Second Medical Emergency Team Activation Within 24 Hours of Index Event. J Nurs Care Qual. 2017. Epub 2017/06/29. 10.1097/ncq.0000000000000272 . [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Baker T, Gerdin M. The clinical usefulness of prognostic prediction models in disquisitional illness. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;45(Supplement C):37–40. ten.1016/j.ejim.2017.09.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6333367/
0 Response to "How Can Vital Signs Signal a Decline in a Patient's Health"
Post a Comment