An interventional study of New risk assessment in Emergency Medicine, sponsored by University of Aarhus. Completed at 4 sites in Denmark. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-10-14.
Sponsored by University of Aarhus · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention
Despite systems for early detection of critical illness, 12% of patients in the emergency department develop clinical deterioration with an increased risk of death as a result.
There is a need for a intervention to support the identification and clinical management of patients at risk of clinical deterioration earlier hospitalization. The Cincinnati Children's Hospital has introduced a model that systematically complements systems for early detection of critical illness with the assessment of patient and relatives concern, clinical intuition and concern of the staff. In addition, the model includes formalized organizational processes aimed at systematic review of risk patients and early treatment efforts. Studies from United States indicate that the model can lead to reduction of serious incidental events and increase the staff awareness of the situation. The Cincinnati model is designed for children and has not yet been studied in a controlled study.
Purpose To develop and investigate the impact of a Danish patient safety model. Method A literature review is conducted to identify risk factors that should be included in a model aimed at detecting and managing clinical deterioration. A patient safety model is developed on the basis of the literature review and the Cincinnati model and is tested in a pilot study. In a controlled intervention study, the effect is investigated against severe clinical deterioration. The intervention is carried out at the emergency departments at Horsens Regional Hospital and Viborg Regional Hospital with the regional hospitals in Randers and Herning as control departments.
Preventing deterioration in acute patients is of great interest internationally. Studies demonstrate that clinical deterioration can be measured up to 24 hours before a heart arrest or intensive care admission in the vital signs. Therefore, the health services have implemented early warning systems to detect deterioration and critical illness.
Despite the systems, 12% of patients in an emergency department still develop severe clinical deterioration with increased risk of death as a result. Research indicates that the reasons for this may be diverse and further action to support the early identification and treatment of patients at risk of deterioration is needed.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital has introduced a patient safety model to ensure identification and mitigation of patient risk through escalated observation, care and treatment depending on the individual's risk for clinical deterioration. The model includes early warning systems, but as something new, it is supplemented with systematic evaluation of more subjective factors such as staff's clinical gaze and concerns, patient/relatives' concerns, communication problems and high risk therapy.
In an observational study, the Cincinnati Situation Awareness model was found to be associated with a near 50% reduction in unsafe intensive care unit transfers and decrease in severe safety events. However, the model has so far not been evaluated in a controlled study or an adult population.
The study will consist of three substudies; the overall study design is based on a framework for implementation of complex interventions following a four-step-process entailing development, pilot test, evaluation and reporting.
Study I. The study will consist of a systematic review and aims to identify risk factors associated with severe clinical deterioration and severe safety events that should ultimately be considered for inclusion in the patient safety model.
The aim of study II is to develop a patient safety model based on the components in the Cincinnati Situation Awareness model and explore its feasibility. The Danish patient safety model is expected to consist of systematic patient risk screening, bed huddles and audits of intensive care unit transfers.
Relevant aspects that should be included in the systematic patient risk screening are identified based on the literature study. A multidisciplinary panel is established to ensure that the choice of risk parameters is made on the basis of risk factors with the highest impact and the applicability to standard care.
A pilot test of the model will be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of methods and procedures based on the principles of the Medical Research Council guidance.
The final model will be investigated in a prospective controlled intervention study design to examine the effect in relation to severe clinical deterioration, safety awareness and serious adverse events (Study III).
The study will follow a Quasi-experimental design. The intervention will be implemented at the Emergency Departments and Intensive Care Units at Horsens and Viborg Regional Hospitals with the Emergency Departments at Herning and Randers Regional Hospitals as controls.
A positive outcome is expected to increase patient safety by reducing patients with severe deterioration, serious adverse events and increase staff safety awareness.
Exclusion Criteria:
New risk assesment
Other: New risk assessment
Standard risk assessment
Consists of a simple physiological scoring system and an assessment of patients who should assist healthcare professionals in identifying patients at risk of clinical deterioration earlier and support timely response and escalation of observation, care and treatment and thereby prevent the development of severe clinical deterioration. The patients included in the study will be monitored using the new risk assessment tool with different intervals according to the patients' conditions. Underlying the tool are algorithms of action for intervention in the critically ill patient, inter professional guidelines and guidance for standardized monitoring, escalation plans and huddles.
The proportion of patients with severe clinical deterioration in the ED
Severe clinical deterioration will be measured by the early warning system used in Central Denmark Region based on vital signs collected from medical records. The score is aggregated and the vital signs include respiratory rate, SatO2, systolic blood pressure, pulse, temperature and level of consciousness measured by APVU. The initial deterioration process from score 0-1 will be considered as "no deterioration". Deterioration directly to score 2 and above, or deterioration from score ≥2 and further will be considered severe.
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the length of stay in the Emergency Department, an expected period of 48 hours
Safety awareness
Staff safety awareness will be measured in the last months of the baseline period and in the last months of the intervention period by the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire adapted and validated for Danish hospital settings. The questionnaire consists of 31 items rated on a 5-point Likert type scale. The questionnaire comprises six subscales: teamwork climate, safety climate, stress recognition, job satisfaction, working conditions, and perceptions of unit management.
Time frame: up to 4 weeks (in baseline and in intervention)
Proportion of participants with severe safety events
Severe safety events is a composite outcome consisting of either unexpected in-hospital cardiac/respiratory arrest, unexpected in-hospital death (when no Do-Not-Resuscitate order has been prescribed) and unanticipated intensive care unit transfer from the Emergency Department
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of the hospital stay in the Emergency Department, an expected average of 17 hours
Proportion of participants admitted to the Intensive Care Units from the Emergency Departments
Proportion of participants referred to the Intensive Care Units from the Emergency Departments
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of the hospital stay in the Emergency Department, an expected average of 17 hours
Proportion of participants admitted to the Intensive Care Units from the wards
Proportion of participants admitted to the Intensive Care Units from the wards
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 1 week
Length of stay at the Intensive Care Unit
The length of time patients spend in the Intensive Care Units
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 1 week
Proportion of 30 day - readmission
Readmission until 30 days after the Emergency Department admission (Central Denmark Region)
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of 30 days after the hospital stay
Length of stay in the Emergency Departments
The length of time patients spend in the Emergency Department
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of the hospital stay in the Emergency Department, an expected average of 17 hours
Length of stay in the Hospital
The length of time patients spend in the hospital
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 1 week
Proportion of in-hospital death
The proportion of participants who die in the hospital
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 1 week
Proportion of in-hospital cardiac/respiratory arrest
The proportion of participants who have a cardiac or respiratory arrest in the hospital
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 1 week
This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of Aarhus