IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v25y2016i1-2p134-143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nurses' documentation of physiological observations in three acute care settings

Author

Listed:
  • Julie Considine
  • Carissa Trotter
  • Judy Currey

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore nurses' documentation of physiological observations in acute care; emergency department, medical and surgical units. Background In Australia, physiological observations include respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and level of consciousness. There is a clear relationship between abnormal physiological observations and adverse events. Nurses have highest level of responsibility for accurate measurement, interpretation and documentation of physiological observations. Design A descriptive exploratory design was used and the study data were collected using a prospective point prevalence approach between 25 July 2012–22 August 2012. Methods The study was conducted in the emergency department, two 30‐bed medical units and one 30‐bed surgical unit of a 578 bed public health service in Melbourne, Australia. All adult patients aged ≥18 years present during data collection periods were eligible for inclusion. Patients in the emergency department resuscitation area were excluded. Patient characteristics and physiological observations for the preceding 24 hours in ward patients or eight hours in emergency department patients were collected. Results One hundred and seventy‐eight patients were included; 38 emergency department patients, 84 medical patients and 56 surgical patients. The median age was 72·5 years and 43·8% were males. The most frequently documented physiological observations were respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, heart rate and systolic blood pressure. The least frequently recorded physiological observations were temperature and conscious state. One or more abnormal physiological parameters was documented in 79·8% (n = 142) patients; evidence of reporting abnormalities was documented in 19·7% of patients (n = 28/142). When controlled for length of stay, physiological observations were more frequently documented in the emergency department. Conclusions There was variability in the number of parameters documented and frequency of physiological observations documented by nurses. Relevance to clinical practice Physiological abnormalities that do not necessarily fulfil rapid response team activation criteria are common in acute care patients and provide nurses with an opportunity for early recognition of deteriorating patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie Considine & Carissa Trotter & Judy Currey, 2016. "Nurses' documentation of physiological observations in three acute care settings," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1-2), pages 134-143, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:1-2:p:134-143
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13010
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Debbie Massey & Leanne M Aitken & Wendy Chaboyer, 2010. "Literature review: do rapid response systems reduce the incidence of major adverse events in the deteriorating ward patient?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(23‐24), pages 3260-3273, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sok Ying Liaw & Devon Yun Jia Chng & Lai Fun Wong & Jasmine Tze Yin Ho & Siti Zubaidah Mordiffi & Simon Cooper & Wei Ling Chua & Emily Neo Kim Ang, 2017. "The impact of a Web‐based educational program on the recognition and management of deteriorating patients," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4848-4856, December.
    2. Stephanie K. Sprogis & Judy Currey & Julie Considine, 2019. "Patient acceptability of wearable vital sign monitoring technologies in the acute care setting: A systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(15-16), pages 2732-2744, August.
    3. Erika Gray & Judy Currey & Julie Considine, 2018. "Hospital in the Home nurses’ recognition and response to clinical deterioration," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(9-10), pages 2152-2160, May.
    4. Katherine Lambe & Judy Currey & Julie Considine, 2017. "Emergency nurses’ decisions regarding frequency and nature of vital sign assessment," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(13-14), pages 1949-1959, July.
    5. Suad Mohammmed Iddrisu & Ana F Hutchinson & Yasmin Sungkar & Julie Considine, 2018. "Nurses' role in recognising and responding to clinical deterioration in surgical patients," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(9-10), pages 1920-1930, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zexian Zeng & Zhenghao Fan & Xiaolei Xie & Colleen H. Swartz & Paul DePriest & Jingshan Li, 2020. "A two-level iteration approach for modeling and analysis of rapid response process with multiple deteriorating patients," Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 35-71, March.
    2. Mandy Odell, 2015. "Detection and management of the deteriorating ward patient: an evaluation of nursing practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1-2), pages 173-182, January.
    3. Jørghild Karlotte Jensen & Randi Skår & Bodil Tveit, 2018. "The impact of Early Warning Score and Rapid Response Systems on nurses’ competence: An integrative literature review and synthesis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1256-1274, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:1-2:p:134-143. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.