A study of nurses' opinions on the use of Siriraj Concurrent Trigger Tool by Modified Early Warning Sign (SiCTT by MEWS) In Siriraj Hospital

Authors

  • Ekkanok Panadamrong Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
  • Wichittra Nootyoo Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
  • Kanchana Rungsangjun Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14456/jmu.2021.39

Keywords:

Perceptions, Siriraj Concurrent Trigger Tool by MEWS

Abstract

           The purpose of this study was to examine the opinions of nurses on using the Siriraj Concurrent Trigger Tool by Modified Early Warning Signs (SiCTT by MEWS) nd its impact on patient safety. The sample was drawn from nurses working at the Inpatient Department, Siriraj Hospital, and it comprised 465 nurses with at least 3-years’ work experience. Data was collected by using a questionnaire with an alpha coefficient (α-coefficient) of 0.916. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and t-test.

           The result found that the majority of the sample group were female (96.5%), with an average age of 36.079.09 years (range 22–59 years). Their average working life was 13.499.11 years (range 3–48 years). Most of the nurses were involved in Internal Medicine Nursing (30.8%). The highest educational level was found among professional nurses (46.8%), who typically had a bachelor's degree (80.5%); most nurses in this subgroup were users of SiCTT by MEWS (93.8%). The practice is between 1–120 months (average 30.7016.65 months). The number SiCTT by MEWS usage between 1-9 stories per persons (average 4.452.08 subject). SiCTT by MEWS was reported to be the most commonly used practice guideline for the care of adult patients who received heparin (69.5%). The nurses’ opinions of SiCTT by MEWS was a statistically significant difference in the safety level before and after using SiCTT by MEWS (p = 0.05). And when analyzing opinions on patient safety levels between user groups and the guideline developer (participants in the creation / development (suggestions and recommendations), both in general and in each aspect, found that both groups were not significantly different at 0.05.

           Conclusions: There was agreement among the nurses who used SiCTT by MEWS that it improved the safety of patients. With the development of operational processes and clearly communicate the policy and importance of using SiCTT by MEWS to ensure systematic and effective operations resulting in maximum safety for patients.

References

ดวงมณี เลาหประสิทธิพร. (2560). Siriraj Concurrent Trigger Tool: จุดเน้นการพัฒนาคุณภาพคณะแพทยศาสตร์ศิริราชพยาบาล ระยะที่ 5 (2555-2558). สืบค้นเมื่อ 30 มิถุนายน 2560 , จาก https://www.si.mahidol.ac.th/th/division/soqd.

ปริทรรศ ศิลปกิจ, สุวัฒน์ มหัตนิรันดร์กุล, ประหยัด ประภาพรหม. (2553). การศึกษาเหตุการณ์ไม่พึงประสงค์ของผู้ป่วยจิตเวช. วารสารสุขภาพจิตแห่งประเทศไทย, 18, 139-48.

โยธิน แสวงดี. (2558). ประชากร การคำนวณขนาดตัวอย่างและวิธีการสุ่มตัวอย่าง. สถาบันวิจัยประชากรและสังคมมหาวิทยาลัยมหิดล. สืบค้นเมื่อ 25 มกราคม 2562 , จาก https://www.spu.ac.th/research/files/2015

Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt HH. (1991). Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med, 324, 370-6.

Cooksley T, Kitlowski E, Haji-Michael P. (2012) Effectiveness of modified early warning score in predicting outcomes in oncology patients.QJM, 105, 1083-8.

Hibbert P, Williams H. (2014). The use of a global trigger tool to inform quality and safety in Australian general practice: a pilot study. AFP, 43, 723-6.

Johnson S & Nileswar A. (2015). Effectiveness of modified early warning score (MEWS) in the outcome of in-hospital adult cardiac arrests in a tertiary hospital. QJM, 5, 4.

Kirkendall ES, Kloppenborg E, Papp J, White D, Frese C, Hacker D, Schoettker PJ, Muething S, Kotagal U. (2012). Measuring adverse events and levels of harm in pediatric inpatients with the global trigger tool. Pediatrics, 130, 1206–14.

Rocha TF, Neves JG, Viegas K. (2016). Modified early warning score: evaluation of trauma patients. REBEn, 69, 906-11.

The University of York. Impact of early warning systems on patient outcomes. [Internet]. (2014) [cited September 2014]. Available from URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/effectiveness-matters-September-2014-earlywarningsystems.pdf.

Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. (2001). Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. Brit Med J, 322, 517-9.

Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD. (1995). The quality in Australian health care study. Med J Aust, 163, 458-71.

Downloads

Published

2021-12-27

Issue

Section

Research Articles