Development of all-cause illness screening tools, including sepsis, is imperative. The clinical picture may be quantified with scoring tools to assist nurses' clinical decision-making, thus leading to improved outcomes and decreased incidence of failure to rescue. Clinical outcomes of interest should be measured and reported in peer-reviewed literature to disseminate the impact on clinical outcomes.

Background: One in three patients who die in the hospital has sepsis. Alerting clinicians to early detection of high-risk patients before deterioration is a top health care priority. Modified Early Warning Scoring (MEWS) tools have assisted organizations in identifying at-risk patients at the first sign of subtle deterioration.Aim and setting: In conjunction with an academic-clinical partner, we evaluated, revised and implemented a modified MEWS-Sepsis screening tool in an acute care facility.Participants: One hundred and thirty-nine direct-care nurses participated in tool evaluation.Methods: Using a plan-do-study-act cycle of quality improvement, critical care scenarios from septic patient data were created and tested in a simulated setting.Results: Upon implementation of the MEWS-Sepsis tool, the monthly risk-adjusted sepsis mortality rate immediately declined by 24%. The decline in mortality has been sustained from implementation to the present, spanning a 5-year period. Conclusions: The implementation of a MEWS-Sepsis screening tool contributed to early identification and implementation of time-sensitive interventions aimed at preventing sepsis-associated deaths. MEWS-Sepsis tools hold potential for scale-up and spreading out of evidence-based practice nursing innovations to transform care, improve patient outcomes, and save lives. K E Y W O R D S academic/service partnerships, critical care, evidence-based, quality improvement

There is a lack of consistency in the scientific literature regarding what is included in vital signs and considered derangement in findings. We used vital signs during blood product administration as an exemplar to explore this controversy. Vital sign components varied across all studies when reviewed by a cohort of frontline nurses attempting to align institutional policy with current evidence. Only low‐level data linking conventional approaches to vital sign monitoring for transfusion reaction detection were found.

Background and Objectives: Clinicians sought to ascertain what frequency of vital signs best detects blood transfusion reactions. This review discusses early and delayed blood product transfusion reaction detection through the lens of scientific literature. Methods: A comprehensive appraisal of published literature was conducted using Integrative Research Review methodology through June 2022 not limited to English or research in Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Medline and PubMed. Results: Full-text articles in the final sample included four articles discussing vital signs detecting blood transfusion reactions and four articles reporting the importance of adding physical assessments for early reaction detection. None of the studies provided evidence regarding how often vital signs should be monitored to detect transfusion reactions. No studies included identical screening components for detecting blood product transfusion reactions. Main themes emerged including variations in what was included in vital signs, importance of respiratory assessment, inclusion of physical assessment, nurse documentation and reporting compliance, and patient and family inclusion in transfusion reaction recognition. Conclusion: Vital sign components varied across reviewed studies. Respiratory rate and pain were not always included in 'vital signs' to identify transfusion reactions. Only low-level data and no clinical trials loosely informing frequency of vital sign monitoring to transfusion reaction detection were found. Respiratory (to include oxygen saturation, lung sounds and respiratory rate) and pain assessment emerged as crucial to acute and delayed transfusion reaction recognition. The disconnect between 'vital signs' and the varied vital sign components reported to detect transfusion reactions in scientific literature requires further exploration.

Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic globally impacted healthcare due to surges in infected patients and respiratory failure. The pandemic escalated nursing burnout syndrome (NBS) across the workforce, especially in critical care environments, potentially leading to long-term negative impact on nurse retention and patient care. To compare self-reported burnout scores of frontline nurses caring for COVID-19 infected patients with burnout scores captured before the pandemic and in non-COVID-19 units from two prior studies.Methods: The descriptive study was conducted using frontline nurses working in eight critical care units based on exposure to COVID-19 infected patients. Nurses were surveyed in 2019 and in 2020 using Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), Well Being Instrument, and Stress-Arousal Adjective Checklist (SACL) instruments.Researchers explored relationships between survey scores and working in COVID-19 units.Results: Nurses working in COVID-19 units experienced more emotional exhaustion (EE) and depersonalization (DP) than nurses working in non-COVID units (p= .0001).Pre-COVID nurse burnout scores across six critical care units (EE mean = 15.41; p= .59) were lower than burnout scores in the COVID-19 intensive care units (EE mean = 10.29; p= .74). Clinical significance (p= .08) was noted by an EE subscale increase from low prepandemic to moderate during the pandemic. Conclusion:Pinpointing associations between COVID-19 infection and nurse burnout may lead to innovative strategies to mitigate burnout in those caring for the most critically ill individuals during future pandemics. Further research is required to establish causal relationships between sociodemographic and work-related psychological predictors of NBS.