Critical Care Unit, T3 University College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2010 Aug;26(4):196-206. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2010.03.002. Epub 2010 May 20.
To validate two physiological track and trigger systems; the early warning score (Morgan et al., 1997) and the trust observation chart on a haematology unit. The study aimed to determine whether either of these systems could be used to identify developing critical illness in haematology.
A prospective validation study where all patients' physiological observations were recorded, the level of care they were receiving assessed and after data collection finished, the triggers and EWS calculated.
A haematology unit in an inner London hospital.
71 patients took part in the study; 17 of these became critically ill. The sensitivity of both systems compared favourably with other studies. However, specificity was lower. This will mean a number of false negative results within this patient group.
The study concluded that the systems are useful adjuncts to identify developing critical illness in haematology patients but cannot be used in isolation due to the high number of false negative results that occur. Any plan to introduce either system should acknowledge the increase in workload that will result.
验证两种生理跟踪和触发系统;早期预警评分(Morgan 等人,1997 年)和血液病单元的信任观察图。本研究旨在确定这两种系统中的任何一种是否可用于识别血液病中潜在的危急病症。
前瞻性验证研究,记录所有患者的生理观察结果,评估他们接受的护理水平,在数据收集完成后,计算触发因素和 EWS。
伦敦一家医院的血液病科。
71 名患者参与了研究;其中 17 名患者病情恶化。两种系统的敏感性与其他研究相比都较好。然而,特异性较低。这意味着在该患者群体中会出现许多假阴性结果。
该研究得出结论,这些系统是识别血液病患者潜在危急病症的有用辅助手段,但由于会出现大量假阴性结果,因此不能单独使用。任何引入这些系统的计划都应该承认随之而来的工作量增加。