Effectiveness of continuous or intermittent vital signs monitoring in preventing adverse events on general wards: a systematic review and meta-analysis

M. Cardona-Morrell, M. Prgomet, R. M. Turner, M. Nicholson, K. Hillman

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

21 Citations (Scopus)
9 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Vital signs monitoring is an old hospital practice for patient safety but evaluation of its effectiveness is not widespread. We aimed to identify strategies to improve intermittent or continuous vital signs monitoring in general wards; and their effectiveness in preventing adverse events on general hospital wards. Methods: Publications searched between 1980 and June 2014 in five databases. Main outcome measures were in-hospital death, cardiac arrest, intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, length of stay, identification of physiological deterioration and activation of rapid response systems. Results: Twenty-two studies assessing the effect of continuous (9) or intermittent monitoring (13) and reporting outcomes on 203,407 patients in-hospital wards across 13 countries were included in this review. Both monitoring practices led to early identification of patient deterioration, increased rapid response activations and improvements in timeliness or completeness of vital signs documentation. Innovative intermittent monitoring approaches are associated with modest reduction in in-hospital mortality over intermittent vital signs monitoring in ‘usual care’. However, there was no evidence of significant reduction in ICU transfers or other adverse events with either intermittent or continuous monitoring. Conclusions: This review of heterogeneous monitoring approaches found no conclusive confirmation of improvements in prevention of cardiac arrest, reduction in length of hospital stay, or prevention of other neurological or cardiovascular adverse events. The evidence found to date is insufficient to recommend continuous vital signs monitoring in general wards as routine practice. Future evaluations of effectiveness need to be undertaken with more rigorous methods and homogeneous outcome measurements.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)806-824
Number of pages19
JournalInternational Journal of Clinical Practice
Volume70
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patients' Rooms
Vital Signs
Meta-Analysis
Length of Stay
Heart Arrest
Intensive Care Units
Patient Safety
Hospital Mortality
General Hospitals
Documentation
Publications
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Databases

Cite this

@article{665078f82a83407da6bcfaca3f0b39fe,
title = "Effectiveness of continuous or intermittent vital signs monitoring in preventing adverse events on general wards: a systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background: Vital signs monitoring is an old hospital practice for patient safety but evaluation of its effectiveness is not widespread. We aimed to identify strategies to improve intermittent or continuous vital signs monitoring in general wards; and their effectiveness in preventing adverse events on general hospital wards. Methods: Publications searched between 1980 and June 2014 in five databases. Main outcome measures were in-hospital death, cardiac arrest, intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, length of stay, identification of physiological deterioration and activation of rapid response systems. Results: Twenty-two studies assessing the effect of continuous (9) or intermittent monitoring (13) and reporting outcomes on 203,407 patients in-hospital wards across 13 countries were included in this review. Both monitoring practices led to early identification of patient deterioration, increased rapid response activations and improvements in timeliness or completeness of vital signs documentation. Innovative intermittent monitoring approaches are associated with modest reduction in in-hospital mortality over intermittent vital signs monitoring in ‘usual care’. However, there was no evidence of significant reduction in ICU transfers or other adverse events with either intermittent or continuous monitoring. Conclusions: This review of heterogeneous monitoring approaches found no conclusive confirmation of improvements in prevention of cardiac arrest, reduction in length of hospital stay, or prevention of other neurological or cardiovascular adverse events. The evidence found to date is insufficient to recommend continuous vital signs monitoring in general wards as routine practice. Future evaluations of effectiveness need to be undertaken with more rigorous methods and homogeneous outcome measurements.",
author = "M. Cardona-Morrell and M. Prgomet and Turner, {R. M.} and M. Nicholson and K. Hillman",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/ijcp.12846",
language = "English",
volume = "70",
pages = "806--824",
journal = "British Journal of Clinical Practice",
issn = "1368-5031",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "10",

}

Effectiveness of continuous or intermittent vital signs monitoring in preventing adverse events on general wards : a systematic review and meta-analysis. / Cardona-Morrell, M.; Prgomet, M.; Turner, R. M.; Nicholson, M.; Hillman, K.

In: International Journal of Clinical Practice, Vol. 70, No. 10, 01.10.2016, p. 806-824.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness of continuous or intermittent vital signs monitoring in preventing adverse events on general wards

T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Cardona-Morrell, M.

AU - Prgomet, M.

AU - Turner, R. M.

AU - Nicholson, M.

AU - Hillman, K.

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - Background: Vital signs monitoring is an old hospital practice for patient safety but evaluation of its effectiveness is not widespread. We aimed to identify strategies to improve intermittent or continuous vital signs monitoring in general wards; and their effectiveness in preventing adverse events on general hospital wards. Methods: Publications searched between 1980 and June 2014 in five databases. Main outcome measures were in-hospital death, cardiac arrest, intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, length of stay, identification of physiological deterioration and activation of rapid response systems. Results: Twenty-two studies assessing the effect of continuous (9) or intermittent monitoring (13) and reporting outcomes on 203,407 patients in-hospital wards across 13 countries were included in this review. Both monitoring practices led to early identification of patient deterioration, increased rapid response activations and improvements in timeliness or completeness of vital signs documentation. Innovative intermittent monitoring approaches are associated with modest reduction in in-hospital mortality over intermittent vital signs monitoring in ‘usual care’. However, there was no evidence of significant reduction in ICU transfers or other adverse events with either intermittent or continuous monitoring. Conclusions: This review of heterogeneous monitoring approaches found no conclusive confirmation of improvements in prevention of cardiac arrest, reduction in length of hospital stay, or prevention of other neurological or cardiovascular adverse events. The evidence found to date is insufficient to recommend continuous vital signs monitoring in general wards as routine practice. Future evaluations of effectiveness need to be undertaken with more rigorous methods and homogeneous outcome measurements.

AB - Background: Vital signs monitoring is an old hospital practice for patient safety but evaluation of its effectiveness is not widespread. We aimed to identify strategies to improve intermittent or continuous vital signs monitoring in general wards; and their effectiveness in preventing adverse events on general hospital wards. Methods: Publications searched between 1980 and June 2014 in five databases. Main outcome measures were in-hospital death, cardiac arrest, intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, length of stay, identification of physiological deterioration and activation of rapid response systems. Results: Twenty-two studies assessing the effect of continuous (9) or intermittent monitoring (13) and reporting outcomes on 203,407 patients in-hospital wards across 13 countries were included in this review. Both monitoring practices led to early identification of patient deterioration, increased rapid response activations and improvements in timeliness or completeness of vital signs documentation. Innovative intermittent monitoring approaches are associated with modest reduction in in-hospital mortality over intermittent vital signs monitoring in ‘usual care’. However, there was no evidence of significant reduction in ICU transfers or other adverse events with either intermittent or continuous monitoring. Conclusions: This review of heterogeneous monitoring approaches found no conclusive confirmation of improvements in prevention of cardiac arrest, reduction in length of hospital stay, or prevention of other neurological or cardiovascular adverse events. The evidence found to date is insufficient to recommend continuous vital signs monitoring in general wards as routine practice. Future evaluations of effectiveness need to be undertaken with more rigorous methods and homogeneous outcome measurements.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84984697909&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/ijcp.12846

DO - 10.1111/ijcp.12846

M3 - Review article

VL - 70

SP - 806

EP - 824

JO - British Journal of Clinical Practice

JF - British Journal of Clinical Practice

SN - 1368-5031

IS - 10

ER -