The Effect of Real Time Analytics on Adverse Events Among Hospitalized Patients
NCT ID: NCT04674098
Last Updated: 2024-06-07
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
WITHDRAWN
OBSERVATIONAL
2021-04-01
2022-01-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Device for Monitoring Pain During Intraoperative, Pre/Post Surgical Periods: Comparison With Standard of Care Monitoring
NCT02630134
Continuous Monitoring of Patients in and After the Acute Admission Ward to Optimize Clinical Pathways
NCT05181111
Hospital Based Continuous Patient Monitoring System
NCT06739447
Early Identification of Clinical Deterioration Using a Wearable Monitoring Device
NCT04220359
Novel Non-Invasive Monitoring Parameter in a Hospital Setting
NCT01306201
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
A number of early warning systems have been developed to assist nursing staff in identifying changes in vital signs as precursors to AEs. The commonly used Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) attempts to identify acute clinical deterioration based on the patient's vital signs and level of consciousness. The higher the MEWS score, the greater risk of an AE. However, the efficacy of the MEWS score is contingent upon the frequency of both the score being recorded and being assessed by the nursing staff. Although continuous monitoring of vital signs takes place within and outside of ICUs these data are rarely provided to the nurse when they are outside of the patient's room in real time. Further, the vital signs and MEWS scores are commonly recorded in the patient record at scheduled intervals during a 24-hour period (e.g. every 4, 6, 8 or 12 hours). If a patient's physiological condition deteriorates between these scheduled intervals and the nurse is not continually with the patient, the opportunity is lost for early recognition of this deterioration that may lead to an AE. The importance of monitoring vital signs in clinical practice is indisputable, but how to best monitor and interpret them and how frequently they should be measured in order to minimize AEs remains unclear.
In order to address this gap in the literature, the project team has developed an innovative technology. The Beat Analytics System (BAS) provides nurses with both real-time monitoring of the patient's vital signs and continuous calculation of their patient's MEWS scores through an app on their cell phone. This information can be presented both numerically (with boundary conditions for alerts) and graphically, in order to observe change in the MEWS score over time. The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of providing nurses with remote, continuous, real-time monitoring of their patients vital signs and MEWS scores using the BAS on the occurrence of AEs, admissions to the ICU, hospital length of stay, and activation of the rapid response team among patients on non-intensive care hospital units. This purpose will be addressed through a longitudinal sequential study design in which the outcome variables (AEs, admissions to the ICU hospital length of stay and activation of the rapid response team) will be monitored on two 20-bed non-intensive care units monthly for 6 months without the BAS. The 6-month baseline data collection period will be followed by a month of training the nursing staff on the targeted unit to using the BAS. Following this orientation month, the outcome variables will again be measured during a 6-month intervention phase in which the BAS will be available to the nurses caring for patients on the targeted unit where the patient's vital signs will be continually recorded.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Usual Care
Every patient who is admitted or transferred to the target unit during both the baseline and intervention phases of the study will be approached by a member of the research staff to be a subject in the study. The patient will be informed of the overall study objectives and be requested to provide informed consent to participate. The patient's involvement in the study will include having the research staff access and extract relevant outcome variables collected from their electronic health record (EHR) (AEs, admissions to the ICU, hospital length of stay and activation of the rapid response team) as a result of their hospital stay.
No interventions assigned to this group
Intervention
If the patient provides consent during the intervention phase, the BAS technology will passively monitor their vital signs generated by the Philips vital sign monitor by relaying their deidentified vital signs data to the CLU, proprietary Cloud server, and subsequently Lumori® on a study-issued cell phone of the RN who is primarily responsible for the patient's care. Patient's admitted or transferred to the targeted unit will NOT be excluded from being approached to participate in the study.
The Beat Analytics System (BAS)
There are three subsystems to the BAS; data aggregation, data analysis and data presentation.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
The Beat Analytics System (BAS)
There are three subsystems to the BAS; data aggregation, data analysis and data presentation.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Bob Topp
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Bob Topp
Professor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Robert Topp, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
College of Nursing
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
The University of Toledo Medical Center
Toledo, Ohio, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Unbeck M, Schildmeijer K, Henriksson P, Jurgensen U, Muren O, Nilsson L, Pukk Harenstam K. Is detection of adverse events affected by record review methodology? an evaluation of the "Harvard Medical Practice Study" method and the "Global Trigger Tool". Patient Saf Surg. 2013 Apr 15;7(1):10. doi: 10.1186/1754-9493-7-10.
Van Den Bos J, Rustagi K, Gray T, Halford M, Ziemkiewicz E, Shreve J. The $17.1 billion problem: the annual cost of measurable medical errors. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Apr;30(4):596-603. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0084.
Lapointe-Shaw L, Bell CM. Measuring the cost of adverse events in hospital. CMAJ. 2019 Aug 12;191(32):E877-E878. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.190912. No abstract available.
Islam MM, Nasrin T, Walther BA, Wu CC, Yang HC, Li YC. Prediction of sepsis patients using machine learning approach: A meta-analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2019 Mar;170:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2018.12.027. Epub 2018 Dec 26.
Kim J, Chae M, Chang HJ, Kim YA, Park E. Predicting Cardiac Arrest and Respiratory Failure Using Feasible Artificial Intelligence with Simple Trajectories of Patient Data. J Clin Med. 2019 Aug 29;8(9):1336. doi: 10.3390/jcm8091336.
Jayasundera R, Neilly M, Smith TO, Myint PK. Are Early Warning Scores Useful Predictors for Mortality and Morbidity in Hospitalised Acutely Unwell Older Patients? A Systematic Review. J Clin Med. 2018 Sep 28;7(10):309. doi: 10.3390/jcm7100309.
Kause J, Smith G, Prytherch D, Parr M, Flabouris A, Hillman K; Intensive Care Society (UK); Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group. A comparison of antecedents to cardiac arrests, deaths and emergency intensive care admissions in Australia and New Zealand, and the United Kingdom--the ACADEMIA study. Resuscitation. 2004 Sep;62(3):275-82. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.05.016.
Downey CL, Tahir W, Randell R, Brown JM, Jayne DG. Strengths and limitations of early warning scores: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017 Nov;76:106-119. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.09.003. Epub 2017 Sep 13.
Ludikhuize J, Smorenburg SM, de Rooij SE, de Jonge E. Identification of deteriorating patients on general wards; measurement of vital parameters and potential effectiveness of the Modified Early Warning Score. J Crit Care. 2012 Aug;27(4):424.e7-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.01.003. Epub 2012 Feb 14.
Kim WY, Shin YJ, Lee JM, Huh JW, Koh Y, Lim CM, Hong SB. Modified Early Warning Score Changes Prior to Cardiac Arrest in General Wards. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 22;10(6):e0130523. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130523. eCollection 2015.
van Galen LS, Dijkstra CC, Ludikhuize J, Kramer MH, Nanayakkara PW. A Protocolised Once a Day Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) Measurement Is an Appropriate Screening Tool for Major Adverse Events in a General Hospital Population. PLoS One. 2016 Aug 5;11(8):e0160811. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160811. eCollection 2016.
Wang AY, Fang CC, Chen SC, Tsai SH, Kao WF. Periarrest Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) predicts the outcome of in-hospital cardiac arrest. J Formos Med Assoc. 2016 Feb;115(2):76-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2015.10.016. Epub 2015 Dec 24.
Brekke IJ, Puntervoll LH, Pedersen PB, Kellett J, Brabrand M. The value of vital sign trends in predicting and monitoring clinical deterioration: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2019 Jan 15;14(1):e0210875. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210875. eCollection 2019.
Smith GB, Recio-Saucedo A, Griffiths P. The measurement frequency and completeness of vital signs in general hospital wards: An evidence free zone? Int J Nurs Stud. 2017 Sep;74:A1-A4. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.07.001. Epub 2017 Jul 4. No abstract available.
Yoder JC, Yuen TC, Churpek MM, Arora VM, Edelson DP. A prospective study of nighttime vital sign monitoring frequency and risk of clinical deterioration. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Sep 9;173(16):1554-5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.7791. No abstract available.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
300854-UT
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.