↓ Skip to main content

Implementing paediatric early warning scores systems in the Netherlands: future implications

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Implementing paediatric early warning scores systems in the Netherlands: future implications
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12887-018-1099-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. F. de Groot, N. Damen, E. de Loos, L. van de Steeg, L. Koopmans, P. Rosias, M. Bruijn, J. Goorhuis, C. Wagner

Abstract

Paediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS) are increasingly being used for early identification and management of clinical deterioration in paediatric patients. A PEWS system includes scores, cut-off points and appropriate early intervention. In 2011, The Dutch Ministry of Health advised hospitals to implement a PEWS system in order to improve patient safety in paediatric wards. The objective of this study was to examine the results of implementation of PEWS systems and to gain insight into the attitudes of professionals towards using a PEWS system in Dutch non-university hospitals. Quantitative data were gathered at start, midway and at the end of the implementation period through retrospective patient record review (n = 554). Semi-structured interviews with professionals (n = 8) were used to gain insight in the implementation process and experiences. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using an inductive approach. Looking at PEWS systems of the five participating hospitals, different parameters and policies were found. While all hospitals included heart rate and respiratory rate, other variables differed among hospitals. At baseline, none of the hospitals used a PEWS system. After 1 year, PEWS were recorded in 69.2% of the patient records and elevated PEWS resulted in appropriate action in 49.1%. Three themes emerged from the interviews: 1) while the importance of using a PEWS system was acknowledged, professionals voiced some doubts about the effectiveness and validity of their PEWS system 2) registering PEWS required little extra effort and was facilitated by PEWS being integrated into the electronic patient record 3) Without a national PEWS system or guidelines, hospitals found it difficult to identify a suitable PEWS system for their setting. Existing systems were not always considered applicable in a non-university setting. After 1 year, hospitals showed improvements in the use of their PEWS system, although some were decidedly more successful than others. Doubts among staff about validity, effectiveness and communication with other hospitals during transfer to higher level care hospital might hinder sustainable implementation. For these purposes the development of a national PEWS system is recommended, consisting of a "core set" of PEWS, cut-off points and associated early intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 15%
Other 6 7%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 38 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 17%
Psychology 6 7%
Engineering 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 40 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,807,868
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#410
of 3,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,728
of 329,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#14
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.