• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

针对高儿科轨迹和触发工具评分但未引起更多关注的住院患儿病例的共识:一项德尔菲流程研究。

Consensus on patient cases for hospitalised children with a high paediatric track and trigger tool score that raises no mounting concern: a Delphi process study.

机构信息

Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark

Research Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University and Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark.

出版信息

BMJ Paediatr Open. 2022 Jul;6(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2022-001564.

DOI:10.1136/bmjpo-2022-001564
PMID:36053613
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9272132/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Paediatric track and trigger tools (PTTTs) based on vital parameters have been implemented in hospitals worldwide to help healthcare professionals identify signs of critical illness and incipient deterioration in hospitalised children. It has been documented that nurses do not use PTTT as intended, but deviate from PTTT protocols because, in some situations, PTTT observations make little sense to them. The present study aimed to reach consensus on whether automatically generated PTTT scores that are higher than deemed reasonable by healthcare professionals according to their professional experience and clinical expertise may be downgraded.

METHODS

A two-round modified Delphi technique was used to explore consensus on 14 patient cases for hospitalised children with a high PTTT score that did not raise concerns by systematically collating questionnaire responses. Participants rated their level of agreement on a 9-point Likert scale. IQR and median were calculated for each case.

FINDINGS

A total of 221 participants completed round 1 and 101 participants completed round 2. Across the two rounds, majority of the participants were from paediatric departments, nurses and women. In round 1, consensus on inclusion was reached on 2 of the 14 cases. In round 2, consensus was reached on one additional patient case. Three of the 11 non-consensus cases remaining after rounds 1 and 2 were included by the research group based on predefined criteria.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, a consensus opinion was achieved on six patient cases where the child had a high PTTT score but where the healthcare professionals were not as concerned as indicated by the PTTT score.

摘要

背景

基于生命体征的儿科追踪与触发工具(PTTT)已在全球范围内的医院实施,以帮助医护人员识别危重症和住院儿童病情恶化的迹象。有记录表明,护士并没有按预期使用 PTTT,而是偏离了 PTTT 方案,因为在某些情况下,他们认为 PTTT 的观察结果对他们来说没有意义。本研究旨在就医护人员根据专业经验和临床专业知识认为不合理的自动生成的 PTTT 评分是否可以降级达成共识。

方法

采用两轮改良 Delphi 技术,通过系统整理问卷回复,探讨了对 14 例住院儿童高 PTTT 评分但未引起关注的病例是否需要降低评分的共识。参与者对其 9 分制 Likert 量表的同意程度进行评分。对每个病例计算 IQR 和中位数。

结果

共有 221 名参与者完成了第一轮,101 名参与者完成了第二轮。两轮中,大多数参与者来自儿科病房、护士和女性。在第一轮中,14 例病例中有 2 例达成了纳入共识。在第二轮中,又有 1 例病例达成了共识。在两轮之后,有 3 例非共识病例仍未达成共识,研究小组根据预设标准将其纳入。

结论

总之,达成了共识,认为在儿童 PTTT 评分较高但医护人员不像 PTTT 评分所表明的那样担忧的 6 例病例中,应降低评分。

相似文献

1
Consensus on patient cases for hospitalised children with a high paediatric track and trigger tool score that raises no mounting concern: a Delphi process study.针对高儿科轨迹和触发工具评分但未引起更多关注的住院患儿病例的共识:一项德尔菲流程研究。
BMJ Paediatr Open. 2022 Jul;6(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2022-001564.
2
Validity and effectiveness of paediatric early warning systems and track and trigger tools for identifying and reducing clinical deterioration in hospitalised children: a systematic review.儿科预警系统和跟踪与触发工具在识别和减少住院儿童临床恶化方面的有效性和实用性:系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2019 May 5;9(5):e022105. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022105.
3
Establishing consensus on principles and competencies for the use of play in clinical practice in hospitals: An international Delphi study.确立在医院临床实践中使用游戏的原则和能力的共识:一项国际 Delphi 研究。
Eur J Pediatr. 2024 Apr;183(4):1595-1605. doi: 10.1007/s00431-023-05411-4. Epub 2024 Jan 6.
4
Medication appropriateness tool for co-morbid health conditions in dementia: consensus recommendations from a multidisciplinary expert panel.痴呆症共病健康状况的药物适宜性工具:多学科专家小组的共识建议
Intern Med J. 2016 Oct;46(10):1189-1197. doi: 10.1111/imj.13215.
5
Consensus on predictors of clinical deterioration in emergency departments: A Delphi process study.急诊科临床恶化预测因素的共识:德尔菲法研究。
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021 Feb;65(2):266-275. doi: 10.1111/aas.13709. Epub 2020 Oct 8.
6
Modified international e-Delphi survey to define healthcare professional competencies for working with teenagers and young adults with cancer.修订后的国际电子德尔菲调查,以确定与青少年和年轻癌症患者合作的医疗保健专业人员的能力。
BMJ Open. 2016 May 3;6(5):e011361. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011361.
7
Pedi-R-MAPP: The development of a nutritional awareness tool for use in remote paediatric consultations using a modified Delphi consensus.儿童远程医疗营养评估工具(Pedi-R-MAPP):使用改良 Delphi 共识开发的用于远程儿科咨询的营养意识工具。
Clin Nutr. 2022 Mar;41(3):661-672. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2022.01.009. Epub 2022 Jan 13.
8
Developing a consensus-based scoring rubric to enhance practice-based assessment of student nurses' clinical competence: A Delphi study.制定基于共识的评分标准以加强对实习护士临床能力的实践评估:一项德尔菲研究。
Nurse Educ Today. 2021 May;100:104859. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104859. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
9
Indicators of Quality Rehabilitation Services for Individuals with Limited English Proficiency: A 3-Round Delphi Study.针对有限英语水平个体的康复服务质量指标:三轮德尔菲研究。
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021 Nov;102(11):2125-2133. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.04.020. Epub 2021 May 28.
10
Development and use of the PodEssential and Paeds-PodEssential triage tools to define "essential" podiatry services. A Delphi survey, scoping review, and face validity testing study.开发和使用 PodEssential 和 Paeds-PodEssential 分诊工具来定义“基本”足病服务。一项德尔菲调查、范围界定审查和表面有效性测试研究。
J Foot Ankle Res. 2022 Mar 8;15(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s13047-022-00525-8.

本文引用的文献

1
How long do nursing staff take to measure and record patients' vital signs observations in hospital? A time-and-motion study.医院护理人员测量并记录患者生命体征观察数据需要多长时间?一项工时与动作研究。
Int J Nurs Stud. 2021 Jun;118:103921. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103921. Epub 2021 Mar 3.
2
Consensus on predictors of clinical deterioration in emergency departments: A Delphi process study.急诊科临床恶化预测因素的共识:德尔菲法研究。
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021 Feb;65(2):266-275. doi: 10.1111/aas.13709. Epub 2020 Oct 8.
3
Validity and effectiveness of paediatric early warning systems and track and trigger tools for identifying and reducing clinical deterioration in hospitalised children: a systematic review.儿科预警系统和跟踪与触发工具在识别和减少住院儿童临床恶化方面的有效性和实用性:系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2019 May 5;9(5):e022105. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022105.
4
Nurses' 12-hour shifts and missed or delayed vital signs observations on hospital wards: retrospective observational study.护士 12 小时轮班和医院病房中重要体征观察的遗漏或延迟:回顾性观察研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 1;9(1):e024778. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024778.
5
Comparison of Two Pediatric Early Warning Systems: A Randomized Trial.两种儿科早期预警系统的比较:一项随机试验
J Pediatr Nurs. 2019 Jan-Feb;44:e58-e65. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2018.11.001. Epub 2018 Nov 22.
6
Defining significant childhood illness and injury in the Emergency Department: a consensus of UK and Ireland expert opinion.定义急诊科儿童重大疾病和损伤:英国和爱尔兰专家共识。
Emerg Med J. 2018 Nov;35(11):685-690. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2018-207802. Epub 2018 Oct 3.
7
Minimal Impact of Implemented Early Warning Score and Best Practice Alert for Patient Deterioration.实施早期预警评分和最佳实践警报对患者恶化的影响最小。
Crit Care Med. 2019 Jan;47(1):49-55. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003439.
8
Clinical profile of children experiencing in-hospital clinical deterioration requiring transfer to a higher level of care.因院内临床病情恶化而需要转至更高护理级别的儿童的临床特征。
J Child Health Care. 2019 Dec;23(4):522-533. doi: 10.1177/1367493518794400. Epub 2018 Aug 19.
9
Pediatric Early Warning Score Systems, Nurses Perspective - A Focus Group Study.儿科早期预警评分系统:护士视角——一项焦点小组研究
J Pediatr Nurs. 2018 Jul-Aug;41:e16-e22. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2018.02.004. Epub 2018 Feb 14.
10
'The Score Matters': wide variations in predictive performance of 18 paediatric track and trigger systems.“评分至关重要”:18种儿科病情追踪与触发系统的预测性能差异很大。
Arch Dis Child. 2017 Jun;102(6):487-495. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-311088. Epub 2017 Mar 14.