IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i9-10p1860-1871.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A fundamental conflict of care: Nurses’ accounts of balancing patients' sleep with taking vital sign observations at night

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna Hope
  • Alejandra Recio‐Saucedo
  • Carole Fogg
  • Peter Griffiths
  • Gary B Smith
  • Greta Westwood
  • Paul E Schmidt

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore why adherence to vital sign observations scheduled by an early warning score protocol reduces at night. Background Regular vital sign observations can reduce avoidable deterioration in hospital. early warning score protocols set the frequency of these observations by the severity of a patient's condition. Vital sign observations are taken less frequently at night, even with an early warning score in place, but no literature has explored why. Design A qualitative interpretative design informed this study. Methods Seventeen semi‐structured interviews with nursing staff working on wards with varying levels of adherence to scheduled vital sign observations. A thematic analysis approach was used. Results At night, nursing teams found it difficult to balance the competing care goals of supporting sleep with taking vital sign observations. The night‐time frequency of these observations was determined by clinical judgement, ward‐level expectations of observation timing and the risk of disturbing other patients. Patients with COPD or dementia could be under‐monitored, while patients nearing the end of life could be over‐monitored. Conclusion In this study, we found an early warning score algorithm focused on deterioration prevention did not account for long‐term management or palliative care trajectories. Nurses were therefore less inclined to wake such patients to take vital sign observations at night. However, the perception of widespread exceptions and lack of evidence regarding optimum frequency risks delegitimising the early warning score approach. This may pose a risk to patient safety, particularly patients with dementia or chronic conditions. Relevance to clinical practice Nurses should document exceptions and discuss these with the wider team. Hospitals should monitor why vital sign observations are missed at night, identify which groups are under‐monitored and provide guidance on prioritising competing expectations. early warning score protocols should take account of different care trajectories.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna Hope & Alejandra Recio‐Saucedo & Carole Fogg & Peter Griffiths & Gary B Smith & Greta Westwood & Paul E Schmidt, 2018. "A fundamental conflict of care: Nurses’ accounts of balancing patients' sleep with taking vital sign observations at night," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(9-10), pages 1860-1871, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:9-10:p:1860-1871
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14234
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14234?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. 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.
    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. Chiara Dall’Ora & Peter Griffiths & Joanna Hope & Hannah Barker & Gary B Smith, 2020. "What is the nursing time and workload involved in taking and recording patients’ vital signs? A systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(13-14), pages 2053-2068, July.

    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. Clint Douglas & Catriona Booker & Robyn Fox & Carol Windsor & Sonya Osborne & Glenn Gardner, 2016. "Nursing physical assessment for patient safety in general wards: reaching consensus on core skills," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(13-14), pages 1890-1900, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Doug Elliott & Emily Allen & Sharon McKinley & Lin Perry & Christine Duffield & Margaret Fry & Robyn Gallagher & Rick Iedema & Michael Roche, 2016. "User acceptance of observation and response charts with a track and trigger system: a multisite staff survey," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(15-16), pages 2211-2222, August.
    4. Chiara Dall’Ora & Peter Griffiths & Joanna Hope & Hannah Barker & Gary B Smith, 2020. "What is the nursing time and workload involved in taking and recording patients’ vital signs? A systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(13-14), pages 2053-2068, July.
    5. Gitte Bunkenborg & Lars Smith‐Hansen & Ingrid Poulsen, 2019. "Implementing mandatory early warning scoring impacts nurses’ practice of documenting free text notes," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(15-16), pages 2990-3000, August.
    6. Claire Foley & Maura Dowling, 2019. "How do nurses use the early warning score in their practice? A case study from an acute medical unit," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(7-8), pages 1183-1192, 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:27:y:2018:i:9-10:p:1860-1871. 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.