4.5 Article

Nurses' Experiences and Perceptions of two Early Warning Score systems to Identify Patient Deterioration-A Focus Group Study

Journal

NURSING OPEN
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages 1788-1796

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.821

Keywords

clinical assessment; clinical decision-making; focus groups; Individual Early Warning Score; National Early Warning Score; nursing; patient deterioration; qualitative research; track and trigger systems; vital signs

Categories

Funding

  1. Nordsjaellands Hospital and Laerdal Foundation [3581]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that Early Warning Score systems are important for identifying patient deterioration, but lack of flexibility can lead to frustration among nurses. Nurses, through enhancing inter-professional collaboration and improving professional development and communication skills when using these scoring systems, can better detect patient deterioration.
Aims: To explore Registered Nurses' experiences and perceptions with National Early Warning Score and Individual Early Warning Score to identify patient deterioration. Design: A qualitative exploratory design. Methods: Six focus groups were conducted at six Danish hospitals from February to June 2019. Registered Nurses from both medical, surgical and emergency departments participated. The focus groups were analysed using content analysis. Results: One theme and four categories were identified. Theme: Meaningful in identifying patient deterioration but causing frustration due to lack of flexibility. Categories: (a) Inter-professional collaboration strengthened through the use of Early Warning Score systems, (b) Enhanced professional development and communication among nurses when using Early Warning Score systems, (c) Detecting patient deterioration by integrating nurses' clinical gaze with Early Warning Score systems and (d) Modification and fear of making mistakes when using Early Warning Score systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available