Search In this Thesis
   Search In this Thesis  
العنوان
Effect of early warning scoring system implementation on patients{u2019} outcomes in an emergency hospital /
الناشر
Mohamed Naeem Mohamed Badr ,
المؤلف
Mohamed Naeem Mohamed Badr
هيئة الاعداد
باحث / Mohamed Naeem Mohamed Badr
مشرف / Nahla Shaban Al
مشرف / Ahmed Mohamed Mukhtar
مناقش / Nahla Shaban Al
تاريخ النشر
2021
عدد الصفحات
160 , (35) Leaves :
اللغة
الإنجليزية
الدرجة
الدكتوراه
التخصص
تمريض العناية الحرجة
تاريخ الإجازة
15/9/2020
مكان الإجازة
جامعة القاهرة - كلية التمريض - Critical Care Nursing Science
الفهرس
Only 14 pages are availabe for public view

from 228

from 228

Abstract

Background: Early warning score has been developed to facilitate early detection of deterioration by categorizing a patients{u2019} severity of illness and prompting nursing staff to request a medical review at specific trigger points. Aim of the study: To evaluate the effect of early warning scoring systemimplementation on patients{u2019} outcomes in an emergency hospital. Research Design:Control/intervention groups{u2019}quasi-experimental design was utilized.Setting: selected inpatient unit at an emergency hospital in Egypt.Sample:A prospective sample of 364 adult patients were includedfor six months. The patients were divided into a study group (174 patients) and a control group (190 patients). All the patients were followed up to either death or hospital discharge before and after implementing a new observation chart. The patients{u2019} outcomes were compared and analyzed between both groups.Results: Three stated research hypotheses can be supported,in the intervention period, compared to the control period, a significant reduction was seen in the number of cardiopulmonary arrest (4.7% vs 1.1%, p = 0.046), unplanned ICU admission (5.3% vs 1.7%, p = 0.049), emergency surgery (6.3% vs 0%, p = 0.001), acute kidney injury (6.8% vs 1.1%, p = 0.006). As well, there was a significant increase in the number of patients receiving medical reviews following clinical deterioration in terms of escalation plan (3.2% vs 26.4%, p = <0.001)