ObjectivesTo describe (1) cardiac rehabilitation (CR) referral across cardiac units in a tertiary centre with eReferral; (2) characteristics associated with CR referral and enrolment and (3) the effects of peer navigation (PN) on referral and enrolment. This pilot was a 2 parallel-arm, randomised, single-blind trial with allocation concealment.Setting3 cardiac units (ie, interventional, general cardiology, and cardiac surgery) in 1 of 2 hospitals of a tertiary centre.ParticipantsCR-eligible adult cardiac inpatients were randomised to PN or usual care. 94 (54.7%) patients consented, of which 46 (48.9%) were randomised to PN. Outcomes were ascertained in 76 (80.9%) participants.InterventionThe PN (1) visited participant at the bedside, (2) mailed a card to participant's home reminding about CR and (3) called participant 2 weeks postdischarge to discuss CR barriers.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome of enrolment was defined as participant attendance at a scheduled CR intake appointment (yes/no). The secondary outcome was referral. Blinded outcome assessment was conducted 12 weeks postdischarge, via CR chart extraction.ResultsThose who received care on the cardiac surgery unit (77.9%) were more likely to be referred than those treated on the general cardiology (61.1%) or interventional unit (33.3%; p=0.04). Patients who had cardiac surgery, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia were significantly more likely, and those with congenital heart disease, cancer and a previous cardiac diagnosis were less likely to be referred. Participants referred to a site closer to home (76.2% of those referred) were more likely to enrol than those not (23.7%, p<0.05). PN had no effect on referral (77.6%, p=0.45) or enrolment (46.0%, p=0.24).ConclusionsThere is wide variability in CR referral, even within academic centres, and despite eReferral. Referral was quite high, and thus, PN did not improve CR utilisation. Results support triaging patients to the CR programme closest to their home.Trial registration numberNCT02204449; Results.

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.

No abstract