Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Aim Primary objective: percentage of patients seen by a clinician within the Trust's NEWS guidelines. Secondary objectives time interval for response, escalation to registrar/critical care outreach team (CCOT) and appropriate changes to NEWS monitoring. Method Retrospective study with a sample of 60 patients who scored 3+ in a single parameter or 5+ in total score. Events were categories to 3+ (in a single parameter), 5-6 and 7+. Timeline of the patient's raised NEWS were identified and documentation surrounding the relevant events were used to identify various information include: time of raised NEWS, time of escalation from nurse to clinician, time for clinician to review, escalation to senior clinician/CCOT, changes to NEWS monitoring. Results A total of 172 events occurred (NEWS 3+; 48, NEWS 5-6; 90, NEWS 7+; 34). Patients reviewed were 43.75%, 62.22% and 91.18% respectively. The median time for review for patients scoring 5-6 and 7+ were 1.03h and 1.00h respectively. Only 38.46% of patients scoring 5-6 and 20% of patients scoring 7+ were escalated to the registrar on call or CCOT. Changes to monitoring NEWS interval were 85.56% and 91.18% for NEWS 5-6 and NEWS 7+ respectively. Conclusions The data was presented at the local meeting to raise awareness. Downfalls of the audit included small sample size and the risk of implementing escalation changes during August handover.
Poon et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: