Systems-Based Physical Assessments: Earlier Detection of Clinical Deterioration and Reduced Mortality

An economic evaluation of the Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Early recognition and response to clinical deterioration reduce the frequency of in-hospital cardiac arrests, mortality, and unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) intervention on hospital costs and patient length of stay (LOS).

METHOD

The PRONTO cluster randomised control trial was conducted to improve nurses' responses to patients with abnormal vital signs. Hospital data were collected pre-intervention (T0) at 6 months (T1) and 12 months (T2) post-intervention. The economic evaluation involved a cost-consequence analysis from the hospital's perspective. Generalised estimating equations were used to estimate the parameters for regression models of the difference in costs and LOS between study groups and time points.

RESULTS

Hospital admission data for 6065 patients (intervention group, 3102; control group, 2963) were collected from four hospitals for T0, T1 and T2. The intervention cost was 69.61 A$ per admitted patient, including the additional intervention training for nurses and associated labour costs. The results showed cost savings and a shorter LOS in the intervention group between T0 - T1 and T0 - T2 (cost differences T0 - T1: -364 (95% CI -3,782; 3049) A$ and T0 - T2: -1,710 (95% CI -5,162; 1,742) A$; and LOS differences T0 - T1: -1.10 (95% CI -2.44; 0.24) days and T0 & T2: -2.18 (95% CI -3.53; -0.82) days).

CONCLUSION

The results of the economic analysis demonstrated that the PRONTO intervention improved nurses' responses to patients with abnormal vital signs and significantly reduced hospital LOS by two days at 12 months in the intervention group compared to baseline. From the hospital's perspective, savings from reduced hospitalisations offset the costs of implementing PRONTO.

Transforming nursing assessment in acute hospitals: A cluster randomised controlled trial of an evidence-based nursing core assessment (the ENCORE trial)

BACKGROUND

Patient safety is threatened when early signs of clinical deterioration are missed or not acted upon. This research began as a clinical-academic partnership established around a shared concern of nursing physical assessment practices on general wards and delayed recognition of clinical deterioration. The outcome was the development of a complex intervention facilitated at the ward level for proactive nursing surveillance.

METHODS

The evidence-based nursing core assessment (ENCORE) trial was a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. We hypothesised that ward intervention would reduce the incidence of patient rescue events (medical emergency team activations) and serious adverse events. We randomised 29 general wards in a 1:2 allocation, across 5 Australian hospitals to intervention (n = 10) and usual care wards (n = 19). Skilled facilitation over 12 months enabled practitioner-led, ward-level practice change for proactive nursing surveillance. The primary outcome was the rate of medical emergency team activations and secondary outcomes were unplanned intensive care unit admissions, on-ward resuscitations, and unexpected deaths. Outcomes were prospectively collected for 6 months following the initial 6 months of implementation. Analysis was at the patient level using generalised linear mixed models to account for clustering by ward.

RESULTS

We analysed 29,385 patient admissions to intervention (n = 11,792) and control (n = 17,593) wards. Adjusted models for overall effects suggested the intervention increased the rate of medical emergency team activations (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.314; 95 % confidence interval 0.975, 1.773), although the confidence interval was compatible with a marginal decrease to a substantial increase in rate. Confidence intervals for secondary outcomes included a range of plausible effects from benefit to harm. However, considerable heterogeneity was observed in intervention effects by patient comorbidity. Among patients with few comorbid conditions in the intervention arm there was a lower medical emergency team activation rate and decreased odds of unexpected death. Among patients with multimorbidity in the intervention arm there were higher rates of medical emergency team activation and intensive care unit admissions.

CONCLUSION

Trial outcomes have refined our assumptions about the impact of the ENCORE intervention. The intervention appears to have protective effects for patients with low complexity where frontline teams can respond locally. It also appears to have redistributed medical emergency team activations and unplanned intensive care unit admissions, mobilising higher rates of rescue for patients with multimorbidity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12618001903279 (Date of registration: 22/11/2018; First participant recruited: 01/02/2019).