Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Modified Delphi study about implementation of early warning scores].

Authors: Peter, Nydahl; Florian, Grossmann; Vanessa, Franke; Marie-Madlen, Jeitziner; Susanne, Krotsetis; Koroush, Kabir; Reto, Lingenhag; +5 Authors

[Modified Delphi study about implementation of early warning scores].

Abstract

Background Early warning scores (EWS) are considered an effective tool for the early detection of clinical deterioration in hospital settings. However, their implementation poses complex demands on institutional structures, processes, and culture.Methods As part of a modified Delphi study, experts from the Initiative Qualitätsmedizin network with practical experience in EWS implementation were invited to identify necessary structures, processes, and common pitfalls across the project phases of preparation, implementation, evaluation, and anchoring. In three rounds, recommendations were collected, thematically clustered, and rated (0-10, 10 = maximally relevant). Finally, the recommendations were consolidated in a consensus meeting.Results Eight participants completed all rounds. From 505 responses, 51 consolidated recommendations were identified, all considered as highly relevant (≥ 7 points) in the various rounds. Top priorities were the training of all professional groups (mean 9.3) and transparent communication of results and actions (mean 9.0). Common barriers included lack of information technology (IT) integration, unclear responsibilities, and insufficient feedback. Key success factors were interdisciplinary project teams, early evaluation, and embedding into clinical routines.Conclusion The consensus-based recommendations can support decision-makers in the systematic implementation of EWS. Structured project planning, interprofessional training, and continuous feedback are key success factors. For sustainable integration, EWS should be embedded into quality systems, continuing education, and clinical routines.Zusammenfassung HINTERGRUND: Early Warning Scores (EWS) gelten als effektives Instrument zur frühzeitigen Erkennung klinischer Verschlechterungen im Krankenhaus. Ihre Implementierung stellt jedoch komplexe Anforderungen an Strukturen, Prozesse und Kultur der Einrichtungen.Methode Im Rahmen einer modifizierten Delphi-Studie wurden Experten aus dem Netzwerk Initiative Qualitätsmedizin mit praktischer EWS-Erfahrung eingeladen, notwendige Strukturen, Prozesse und typische Fallstricke in den Projektphasen Vorbereitung, Implementierung, Evaluation und Verankerung zu benennen. In 3 Runden wurden Empfehlungen zu den Phasen gesammelt, thematisch geclustert und bewertet (0–10, 10 = max. relevant). Abschließend wurden die Empfehlungen in einem Konsensustreffen konsolidiert.Ergebnisse Insgesamt nahmen 8 Personen an allen Runden teil. Aus 505 Antworten wurden 51 konsolidierte Empfehlungen identifiziert, die in allen Phasen als hochrelevant (≥ 7 Punkte) bewertet wurden. Die höchste Priorität erhielten die Schulung aller Berufsgruppen (Mittelwert [MW] 9,3) sowie eine transparente Kommunikation von Ergebnissen und Maßnahmen (MW 9,0). Als häufige Barrieren wurden mangelnde IT-Anbindung, Verantwortlichkeiten und Rückmeldungen genannt. Erfolgsentscheidend sind interdisziplinäre Projektteams, die frühzeitige Evaluation und die Einbettung in klinische Routinen.Schlussfolgerungen Die konsensbasierten Empfehlungen können Entscheidungsträger bei der systematischen Einführung von EWS unterstützen. Eine strukturierte Projektplanung, interprofessionelle Schulung und kontinuierliche Rückkopplung sind zentrale Erfolgsfaktoren. Um EWS nachhaltig zu etablieren, sollten sie verbindlich in Qualitätssysteme, Fortbildungen und klinische Routinen integriert werden.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!