Aims To identify factors that influence recognition and response to adult patient deterioration in acute hospitals. Design A mixed‐studies systematic review. Data Sources CINAHL, Medline, and Web of Science were searched for relevant literature published between 2007 – 2018. Review Methods Studies were critically appraised, data extracted and thematically analysed. Results Thirteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Three main themes were identified: (a) Knowledge and understanding of clinical deterioration; (b) Organizational factors; managing deterioration and staffing levels; and (c) Communication; inter‐professional relationships and professional‐patient communication. Conclusion Despite national guidelines, the review findings suggest that the recognition and response to adult patient deterioration in acute hospital settings is sub‐optimal. A multitude of factors influencing the recognition and response to adult patient deterioration emerged from the findings. Impact Patients are receiving sub‐optimal care due to failure in recognizing and responding to patient deterioration in an appropriate and timely manner. Nurses lack knowledge and understanding of deterioration. Organizational factors contribute to inadequate care and communication among professionals was highlighted as challenging. The factors that influence the recognizing and responding to patient deterioration in acute hospitals are multi‐faceted, however this review highlights immediate recommendations for professionals in the acute care setting.

Purpose Globally, 153 million people are visually impaired from uncorrected refractive error. The aim of this research was to verify a method whereby autorefractors could be used by non-specialist health-workers to prescribe spectacles, which used a small stock of preformed lenses that fit frames with standardised apertures. These spectacles were named S-Glasses (Smart Glasses). Patients and methods This prospective, single-cohort exploratory study enrolled 53 patients with 94 eligible eyes having uncorrected vision of 6/18 or worse. Eyes with best-corrected vision worse than 6/12 were excluded. An autorefractor was used to obtain refractions, which were adjusted so that eyes with astigmatism less than 2.00 dioptres (D) received spherical equivalent lenses, and eyes with more astigmatism received toric lenses with a 2.50 D cylindrical element set at one of four meridians. The primary outcome was to compare S-Glasses vision with the WHO definition of visual impairment (6/18). Where astigmatism was 2.00 D or greater, comparison with spherical equivalent was made. Mixed-model analysis with repeated effect was used to account for possible correlation between the vision of fellow eyes of the same individual. Results S-Glasses corrected 100% of eyes with astigmatism less than 3.00 D and 69% of eyes with astigmatism of 3.00 D or greater. Spherical equivalent lenses corrected 25% of eyes with astigmatism of 2.00 À 2.99 D and 11% with astigmatism of at least 3.00 D. Discussion S-Glasses could be beneficial to resource-poor populations without trained refractionists. This novel approach, using approximate toric lenses, results in superior vision for astigmatic patients compared with the practice of providing spherical equivalent alone.

IntroductionFailure to recognise and respond to patient deterioration in an appropriate and timely manner has been highlighted as a global patient safety concern. Early Warning Scores (EWSs) using vital signs were introduced to address this concern, with the aim of getting the patient timely and appropriate treatment. The National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) is in use across the NHS, and many other settings globally. While patient improvements have been shown, research has identified that the NEWS2 is not always used as intended. Therefore, this review will use a realist approach to understand what the mechanisms are that influence appropriate use (or not) of the NEWS2 in acute care settings, how, for whom and in which contexts. The findings will inform clinicians of what helps and/or hinders appropriate use of the NEWS2 in clinical practice, thus helping to facilitate successful implementation.Methods and analysisOur realist review will follow Pawson’s iterative six step process: (1) Development of initial programme theory. (2) Searching the literature; an information scientist will develop, pilot and refine the search strategy. A systematic search will be completed, based on subject relevancy on the following databases: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline, Embase (OvidSP), Web of Science (Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute, Ethos, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Google Scholar for documents dating from 1997 (date of the first published EWS) to present. To retrieve additional relevant data ‘snowballing’ (finding references and authors by hand, contacting authors, searching reference lists and citation-tracking using Google Scholar) will be used. Inclusion criteria include all documents (including grey literature) that relate to the use of EWSs/NEWS2 in the English language only. Documents set in the paediatric, maternity and primary care settings will be excluded. (3) Selecting documents and quality appraisal. (4) Extracting and organising the data. (5) Synthesising the data. (6) Disseminating the findings. We will recruit a group of stakeholders comprised of experienced clinicians who use the NEWS2 as part of their clinical practice to provide feedback throughout the review. Step 1 has already begun with the development of an initial programme theory. This initial programme theory presents how the NEWS2 is supposed to work (or not), it will now be developed, tested and refined.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study as it is secondary research. Dissemination will include a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. Findings will also be amplified through social media platforms with user friendly summaries. Our stakeholder group will also contribute to dissemination of findings in their clinical areas and among existing networks.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022304497.

No abstract

No abstract