Jeroen Ludikhuize1, Marjon Borgert2, Jan Binnekade3, Christian Subbe4, Dave Dongelmans5, Astrid Goossens6. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Quality Assurance and Process Innovation, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.ludikhuize@amc.uva.nl. 2. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Quality Assurance and Process Innovation, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.j.borgert@amc.uva.nl. 3. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.m.binnekade@amc.uva.nl. 4. Department of Acute, Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom. Electronic address: csubbe@hotmail.com. 5. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: d.a.dongelmans@amc.uva.nl. 6. Department of Quality Assurance and Process Innovation, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.goossens@amc.uva.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the effect of protocolized measurement (three times daily) of the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) versus measurement on indication on the degree of implementation of the Rapid Response System (RRS). METHODS:A quasi-experimental study was conducted in a University Hospital in Amsterdam between September and November 2011. Patients who were admitted for at least one overnight stay were included. Wards were randomized to measure the MEWS three times daily ("protocolized") versus measuring the MEWS "when clinically indicated" in the control group. At the end of each month, for an entire seven-day week, all vital signs recorded for patients were registered. The outcomes were categorized into process measures including the degree of implementation and compliance to set monitoring standards and secondly, outcomes such as the degree of delay in physician notification and Rapid Response Team (RRT) activation in patients with raised MEWS (MEWS≥3). RESULTS: MEWS calculations from vital signs occurred in 70% (2513/3585) on the protocolized wards versus 2% (65/3013) in the control group. Compliance with the protocolized regime was presents in 68% (819/1205), compliance in the control group was present in 4% (47/1232) of the measurements. There were 90 calls to primary physicians on the protocolized and 9 calls on the control wards. Additionally on protocolized wards, there were twice as much RRT calls per admission. CONCLUSIONS: Vital signs and MEWS determination three times daily, results in better detection of physiological abnormalities and more reliable activations of the RRT.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To study the effect of protocolized measurement (three times daily) of the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) versus measurement on indication on the degree of implementation of the Rapid Response System (RRS). METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was conducted in a University Hospital in Amsterdam between September and November 2011. Patients who were admitted for at least one overnight stay were included. Wards were randomized to measure the MEWS three times daily ("protocolized") versus measuring the MEWS "when clinically indicated" in the control group. At the end of each month, for an entire seven-day week, all vital signs recorded for patients were registered. The outcomes were categorized into process measures including the degree of implementation and compliance to set monitoring standards and secondly, outcomes such as the degree of delay in physician notification and Rapid Response Team (RRT) activation in patients with raised MEWS (MEWS≥3). RESULTS: MEWS calculations from vital signs occurred in 70% (2513/3585) on the protocolized wards versus 2% (65/3013) in the control group. Compliance with the protocolized regime was presents in 68% (819/1205), compliance in the control group was present in 4% (47/1232) of the measurements. There were 90 calls to primary physicians on the protocolized and 9 calls on the control wards. Additionally on protocolized wards, there were twice as much RRT calls per admission. CONCLUSIONS: Vital signs and MEWS determination three times daily, results in better detection of physiological abnormalities and more reliable activations of the RRT.
Authors: Louise S van Galen; Patricia W Struik; Babiche E J M Driesen; Hanneke Merten; Jeroen Ludikhuize; Johannes I van der Spoel; Mark H H Kramer; Prabath W B Nanayakkara Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eveline Mestrom; Ashley De Bie; Melissa van de Steeg; Merel Driessen; Louis Atallah; Rick Bezemer; R Arthur Bouwman; Erik Korsten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ina Kostakis; Gary B Smith; David Prytherch; Paul Meredith; Connor Price; Anoop Chauhan Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Louise S van Galen; Casper C Dijkstra; Jeroen Ludikhuize; Mark H H Kramer; Prabath W B Nanayakkara Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mariska Weenk; Harry van Goor; Bas Frietman; Lucien Jlpg Engelen; Cornelis Jhm van Laarhoven; Jan Smit; Sebastian Jh Bredie; Tom H van de Belt Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Mariska Weenk; Sebastian J Bredie; Mats Koeneman; Gijs Hesselink; Harry van Goor; Tom H van de Belt Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 5.428