"Identifying the hospitalised patient in crisis"--a consensus conference on the afferent limb of rapid response systems
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
"Identifying the hospitalised patient in crisis"--a consensus conference on the afferent limb of rapid response systems. / Devita, M.A.; Smith, G.B.; Adam, S.K.; Adams-Pizarro, I.; Buist, M.; Bellomo, R.; Bonello, R.; Cerchiari, E.; Farlow, B.; Goldsmith, D.; Haskell, H.; Hillman, K.; Howell, M.; Hravnak, M.; Hunt, E.A.; Hvarfner, A.; Kellett, J.; Lighthall, G.K.; Lippert, A.; Lippert, Kristoffer; Mahroof, R.; Myers, Eva Sophia; Rosen, Mette; Whyte, Susan Reynolds; Rotondi, A.; Rubulotta, F.; Winters, B.
I: Resuscitation, Bind 81, Nr. 4, 01.04.2010, s. 375-382.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - "Identifying the hospitalised patient in crisis"--a consensus conference on the afferent limb of rapid response systems
AU - Devita, M.A.
AU - Smith, G.B.
AU - Adam, S.K.
AU - Adams-Pizarro, I.
AU - Buist, M.
AU - Bellomo, R.
AU - Bonello, R.
AU - Cerchiari, E.
AU - Farlow, B.
AU - Goldsmith, D.
AU - Haskell, H.
AU - Hillman, K.
AU - Howell, M.
AU - Hravnak, M.
AU - Hunt, E.A.
AU - Hvarfner, A.
AU - Kellett, J.
AU - Lighthall, G.K.
AU - Lippert, A.
AU - Lippert, Kristoffer
AU - Mahroof, R.
AU - Myers, Eva Sophia
AU - Rosen, Mette
AU - Whyte, Susan Reynolds
AU - Rotondi, A.
AU - Rubulotta, F.
AU - Winters, B.
N1 - Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
PY - 2010/4/1
Y1 - 2010/4/1
N2 - Background: Most reports of Rapid Response Systems (RRS) focus on the efferent, response component of the system, although evidence suggests that improved vital sign monitoring and recognition of a clinical crisis may have outcome benefits. There is no consensus regarding how best to detect patient deterioration or a clear description of what constitutes patient monitoring. Methods: A consensus conference of international experts in safety, RRS, healthcare technology, education, and risk prediction was convened to review current knowledge and opinion on clinical monitoring. Using established consensus procedures, four topic areas were addressed: (1) To what extent do physiologic abnormalities predict risk for patient deterioration? (2) Do workload changes and their potential stresses on the healthcare environment increase patient risk in a predictable manner? (3) What are the characteristics of an "ideal" monitoring system, and to what extent does currently available technology meet this need? and (4) How can monitoring be categorized to facilitate comparing systems? The major findings include: (1) vital sign aberrations predict risk, (2) monitoring patients more effectively may improve outcome, although some risk is random, (3) the workload implications of monitoring on the clinical workforce have not been explored, but are amenable to study and should be investigated, (4) the characteristics of an ideal monitoring system are identifiable, and it is possible to categorize monitoring modalities. It may also be possible to describe monitoring levels, and a system is proposed. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved
AB - Background: Most reports of Rapid Response Systems (RRS) focus on the efferent, response component of the system, although evidence suggests that improved vital sign monitoring and recognition of a clinical crisis may have outcome benefits. There is no consensus regarding how best to detect patient deterioration or a clear description of what constitutes patient monitoring. Methods: A consensus conference of international experts in safety, RRS, healthcare technology, education, and risk prediction was convened to review current knowledge and opinion on clinical monitoring. Using established consensus procedures, four topic areas were addressed: (1) To what extent do physiologic abnormalities predict risk for patient deterioration? (2) Do workload changes and their potential stresses on the healthcare environment increase patient risk in a predictable manner? (3) What are the characteristics of an "ideal" monitoring system, and to what extent does currently available technology meet this need? and (4) How can monitoring be categorized to facilitate comparing systems? The major findings include: (1) vital sign aberrations predict risk, (2) monitoring patients more effectively may improve outcome, although some risk is random, (3) the workload implications of monitoring on the clinical workforce have not been explored, but are amenable to study and should be investigated, (4) the characteristics of an ideal monitoring system are identifiable, and it is possible to categorize monitoring modalities. It may also be possible to describe monitoring levels, and a system is proposed. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved
KW - Heart Arrest
KW - Humans
KW - Inpatients
KW - Monitoring, Physiologic
KW - Resuscitation
KW - Vital Signs
U2 - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.12.008
DO - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.12.008
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 20149516
VL - 81
SP - 375
EP - 382
JO - Resuscitation
JF - Resuscitation
SN - 0300-9572
IS - 4
ER -
ID: 34111973