What is the nursing time and workload involved in taking and recording patients’ vital signs? A systematic review
Authors: Dall’Ora, C., Griffiths, P., Hope, J., Barker, H. and Smith, G.B.
Journal: Journal of Clinical Nursing
Volume: 29
Issue: 13-14
Pages: 2053-2068
eISSN: 1365-2702
ISSN: 0962-1067
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15202
Abstract:Aims and objectives: To synthesise evidence regarding the time nurses take to monitor and record vital signs observations and to calculate early warning scores. Background: While the importance of vital signs’ monitoring is increasingly highlighted as a fundamental means of maintaining patient safety and avoiding patient deterioration, the time and associated workload involved in vital signs activities for nurses are currently unknown. Design: Systematic review. Methods: A literature search was performed up to 17 December 2019 in CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library using the following terms: vital signs; monitoring; surveillance; observation; recording; early warning scores; workload; time; and nursing. We included studies performed in secondary or tertiary ward settings, where vital signs activities were performed by nurses, and we excluded qualitative studies and any research conducted exclusively in paediatric or maternity settings. The study methods were compliant with the PRISMA checklist. Results: Of 1,277 articles, we included 16 papers. Studies described taking vital signs observations as the time to measure/collect vital signs and time to record/document vital signs. As well as mean times being variable between studies, there was considerable variation in the time taken within some studies as standard deviations were high. Documenting vital signs observations electronically at the bedside was faster than documenting vital signs away from the bed. Conclusions: Variation in the method(s) of vital signs measurement, the timing of entry into the patient record, the method of recording and the calculation of early warning scores values across the literature make direct comparisons of their influence on total time taken difficult or impossible. Relevance to clinical practice: There is a very limited body of research that might inform workload planning around vital signs observations. This uncertainty means the resource implications of any recommendation to change the frequency of observations associated with early warning scores are unknown.
Source: Scopus
What is the nursing time and workload involved in taking and recording patients' vital signs? A systematic review.
Authors: Dall'Ora, C., Griffiths, P., Hope, J., Barker, H. and Smith, G.B.
Journal: J Clin Nurs
Volume: 29
Issue: 13-14
Pages: 2053-2068
eISSN: 1365-2702
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15202
Abstract:AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To synthesise evidence regarding the time nurses take to monitor and record vital signs observations and to calculate early warning scores. BACKGROUND: While the importance of vital signs' monitoring is increasingly highlighted as a fundamental means of maintaining patient safety and avoiding patient deterioration, the time and associated workload involved in vital signs activities for nurses are currently unknown. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A literature search was performed up to 17 December 2019 in CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library using the following terms: vital signs; monitoring; surveillance; observation; recording; early warning scores; workload; time; and nursing. We included studies performed in secondary or tertiary ward settings, where vital signs activities were performed by nurses, and we excluded qualitative studies and any research conducted exclusively in paediatric or maternity settings. The study methods were compliant with the PRISMA checklist. RESULTS: Of 1,277 articles, we included 16 papers. Studies described taking vital signs observations as the time to measure/collect vital signs and time to record/document vital signs. As well as mean times being variable between studies, there was considerable variation in the time taken within some studies as standard deviations were high. Documenting vital signs observations electronically at the bedside was faster than documenting vital signs away from the bed. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in the method(s) of vital signs measurement, the timing of entry into the patient record, the method of recording and the calculation of early warning scores values across the literature make direct comparisons of their influence on total time taken difficult or impossible. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: There is a very limited body of research that might inform workload planning around vital signs observations. This uncertainty means the resource implications of any recommendation to change the frequency of observations associated with early warning scores are unknown.
Source: PubMed
What is the nursing time and workload involved in taking and recording patients' vital signs? A systematic review
Authors: Dall'Ora, C., Griffiths, P., Hope, J., Barker, H. and Smith, G.B.
Journal: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING
Volume: 29
Issue: 13-14
Pages: 2053-2068
eISSN: 1365-2702
ISSN: 0962-1067
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15202
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
What is the nursing time and workload involved in taking and recording patients’ vital signs? A systematic review.
Authors: Dall’ora, C., Recio-Saucedo, A., Hope, J., Griffiths, J. and Smith, G.
Journal: Journal of Clinical Nursing
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN: 0962-1067
Source: Manual
What is the nursing time and workload involved in taking and recording patients' vital signs? A systematic review.
Authors: Dall'Ora, C., Griffiths, P., Hope, J., Barker, H. and Smith, G.B.
Journal: Journal of clinical nursing
Volume: 29
Issue: 13-14
Pages: 2053-2068
eISSN: 1365-2702
ISSN: 0962-1067
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15202
Abstract:Aims and objectives
To synthesise evidence regarding the time nurses take to monitor and record vital signs observations and to calculate early warning scores.Background
While the importance of vital signs' monitoring is increasingly highlighted as a fundamental means of maintaining patient safety and avoiding patient deterioration, the time and associated workload involved in vital signs activities for nurses are currently unknown.Design
Systematic review.Methods
A literature search was performed up to 17 December 2019 in CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library using the following terms: vital signs; monitoring; surveillance; observation; recording; early warning scores; workload; time; and nursing. We included studies performed in secondary or tertiary ward settings, where vital signs activities were performed by nurses, and we excluded qualitative studies and any research conducted exclusively in paediatric or maternity settings. The study methods were compliant with the PRISMA checklist.Results
Of 1,277 articles, we included 16 papers. Studies described taking vital signs observations as the time to measure/collect vital signs and time to record/document vital signs. As well as mean times being variable between studies, there was considerable variation in the time taken within some studies as standard deviations were high. Documenting vital signs observations electronically at the bedside was faster than documenting vital signs away from the bed.Conclusions
Variation in the method(s) of vital signs measurement, the timing of entry into the patient record, the method of recording and the calculation of early warning scores values across the literature make direct comparisons of their influence on total time taken difficult or impossible.Relevance to clinical practice
There is a very limited body of research that might inform workload planning around vital signs observations. This uncertainty means the resource implications of any recommendation to change the frequency of observations associated with early warning scores are unknown.Source: Europe PubMed Central