Caroline Kovacs

Bio: Caroline Kovacs is an academic researcher from University of Portsmouth. The author has contributed to research in topics: Early warning score & Vital signs. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 13 publications receiving 405 citations.

What impact does nursing care left undone have on patient outcomes? Review of the literature

Abstract: Aims and objectives Systematic review of the impact of missed nursing care on outcomes in adults, on acute hospital wards and in nursing homes. Background A considerable body of evidence supports the hypothesis that lower levels of registered nurses on duty increase the likelihood of patients dying on hospital wards, and the risk of many aspects of care being either delayed or left undone (missed). However, the direct consequence of missed care remains unclear. Design Systematic review. Methods We searched Medline (via Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and Scopus for studies examining the association of missed nursing care and at least one patient outcome. Studies regarding registered nurses, healthcare assistants/support workers/nurses’ aides were retained. Only adult settings were included. Because of the nature of the review, qualitative studies, editorials, letters and commentaries were excluded. PRISMA guidelines were followed in reporting the review. Results Fourteen studies reported associations between missed care and patient outcomes. Some studies were secondary analyses of a large parent study. Most of the studies used nurse or patient reports to capture outcomes, with some using administrative data. Four studies found significantly decreased patient satisfaction associated with missed care. Seven studies reported associations with one or more patient outcomes including medication errors, urinary tract infections, patient falls, pressure ulcers, critical incidents, quality of care and patient readmissions. Three studies investigated whether there was a link between missed care and mortality and from these results no clear associations emerged. Conclusions The review shows the modest evidence base of studies exploring missed care and patient outcomes generated mostly from nurse and patient self-reported data. To support the assertion that nurse staffing levels and skill mix are associated with adverse outcomes as a result of missed care, more research that uses objective staffing and outcome measures is required. Relevance to clinical practice Although nurses may exercise judgements in rationing care in the face of pressure, there are nonetheless adverse consequences for patients (ranging from poor experience of care to increased risk of infection, readmissions and complications due to critical incidents from undetected physiological deterioration). Hospitals should pay attention to nurses’ reports of missed care and consider routine monitoring as a quality and safety indicator.

Nurse staffing levels, missed vital signs and mortality in hospitals: retrospective longitudinal observational study

Abstract: Background Low nurse staffing levels are associated with adverse patient outcomes from hospital care, but the causal relationship is unclear. Limited capacity to observe patients has been hypothesised as a causal mechanism. Objectives This study determines whether or not adverse outcomes are more likely to occur after patients experience low nurse staffing levels, and whether or not missed vital signs observations mediate any relationship. Design Retrospective longitudinal observational study. Multilevel/hierarchical mixed-effects regression models were used to explore the association between registered nurse (RN) and health-care assistant (HCA) staffing levels and outcomes, controlling for ward and patient factors. Setting and participants A total of 138,133 admissions to 32 general adult wards of an acute hospital from 2012 to 2015. Main outcomes Death in hospital, adverse event (death, cardiac arrest or unplanned intensive care unit admission), length of stay and missed vital signs observations. Data sources Patient administration system, cardiac arrest database, eRoster, temporary staff bookings and the Vitalpac system (System C Healthcare Ltd, Maidstone, Kent; formerly The Learning Clinic Limited) for observations. Results Over the first 5 days of stay, each additional hour of RN care was associated with a 3% reduction in the hazard of death [hazard ratio (HR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.0]. Days on which the HCA staffing level fell below the mean were associated with an increased hazard of death (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.07), but the hazard of death increased as cumulative staffing exposures varied from the mean in either direction. Higher levels of temporary staffing were associated with increased mortality. Adverse events and length of stay were reduced with higher RN staffing. Overall, 16% of observations were missed. Higher RN staffing was associated with fewer missed observations in high-acuity patients (incidence rate ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99), whereas the overall rate of missed observations was related to overall care hours (RN + HCA) but not to skill mix. The relationship between low RN staffing and mortality was mediated by missed observations, but other relationships between staffing and mortality were not. Changing average skill mix and staffing levels to the levels planned by the Trust, involving an increase of 0.32 RN hours per patient day (HPPD) and a similar decrease in HCA HPPD, would be associated with reduced mortality, an increase in staffing costs of £28 per patient and a saving of £0.52 per patient per hospital stay, after accounting for the value of reduced stays. Limitations This was an observational study in a single site. Evidence of cause is not definitive. Variation in staffing could be influenced by variation in the assessed need for staff. Our economic analysis did not consider quality or length of life. Conclusions Higher RN staffing levels are associated with lower mortality, and this study provides evidence of a causal mechanism. There may be several causal pathways and the absolute rate of missed observations cannot be used to guide staffing decisions. Increases in nursing skill mix may be cost-effective for improving patient safety. Future work More evidence is required to validate approaches to setting staffing levels. Other aspects of missed nursing care should be explored using objective data. The implications of findings about both costs and temporary staffing need further exploration. Trial registration This study is registered as ISRCTN17930973. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A Comparison of the Ability of the Physiologic Components of Medical Emergency Team Criteria and the U.K. National Early Warning Score to Discriminate Patients at Risk of a Range of Adverse Clinical Outcomes

Abstract: To compare the ability of medical emergency team criteria and the National Early Warning Score to discriminate cardiac arrest, unanticipated ICU admission and death within 24 hours of a vital signs measurement, and to quantify the associated workload. Retrospective cohort study. A large U.K. National Health Service District General Hospital. Adults hospitalized from May 25, 2011, to December 31, 2013. None. We applied the National Early Warning Score and 44 sets of medical emergency team criteria to a database of 2,245,778 vital signs sets (103,998 admissions). The National Early Warning Score's performance was assessed using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve and compared with sensitivity/specificity for different medical emergency team criteria. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (95% CI) for the National Early Warning Score for the combined outcome (i.e., death, cardiac arrest, or unanticipated ICU admission) was 0.88 (0.88-0.88). A National Early Warning Score value of 7 had sensitivity/specificity values of 44.5% and 97.4%, respectively. For the 44 sets of medical emergency team criteria studied, sensitivity ranged from 19.6% to 71.2% and specificity from 71.5% to 98.5%. For all outcomes, the position of the National Early Warning Score receiver-operating characteristic curve was above and to the left of all medical emergency team criteria points, indicating better discrimination. Similarly, the positions of all medical emergency team criteria points were above and to the left of the National Early Warning Score efficiency curve, indicating higher workloads (trigger rates). When medical emergency team systems are compared to a National Early Warning Score value of greater than or equal to 7, some medical emergency team systems have a higher sensitivity than National Early Warning Score values of greater than or equal to 7. However, all of these medical emergency team systems have a lower specificity and would generate greater workloads.

Comparison of the National Early Warning Score in non-elective medical and surgical patients.

Abstract: Background The National Early Warning Score (NEWS) is used to identify deteriorating patients in hospital. NEWS is a better discriminator of outcomes than other early warning scores in acute medical admissions, but it has not been evaluated in a surgical population. The study aims were to evaluate the ability of NEWS to discriminate cardiac arrest, death and unanticipated ICU admission in patients admitted to surgical specialties, and to compare the performance of NEWS in admissions to medical and surgical specialties. Methods Hospitalwide data over 31 months, from adult inpatients who stayed at least one night or died on the day of admission, were analysed. The data were categorized as elective or non-elective surgical or medical admissions. The ability of NEWS to discriminate the outcomes above in these different groups was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results There were too few outcomes to permit meaningful comparison of elective admissions, so the analysis was constrained to comparison of non-elective admissions. NEWS performed equally well, or better, for surgical as for medical patients. For death within 24 h the AUROC for surgical admissions was 0·914 (95 per cent c.i. 0·907 to 0·922), compared with 0·902 (0·898 to 0·905) for medical admissions. For the combined outcome of any of death, cardiac arrest or unanticipated ICU admission, the AUROC was 0·874 (0·868 to 0·880) for surgical admissions and 0·874 (0·871 to 0·877) for medical admissions. Conclusion NEWS discriminated deterioration in non-elective surgical patients at least as well as in non-elective medical patients.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Abstract: March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, FAHA, Chair Paul Muntner, PhD, MHS, FAHA, Vice Chair Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, FAHA Marcio S. Bittencourt, MD, PhD, MPH Clifton W. Callaway, MD, FAHA April P. Carson, PhD, MSPH, FAHA Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD Alexander R. Chang, MD, MS Susan Cheng, MD, MMSc, MPH, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, MBA, FAHA Francesca N. Delling, MD, MPH Luc Djousse, MD, ScD, MPH Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, FAHA Jane F. Ferguson, PhD, FAHA Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD, FAHA Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc Brett M. Kissela, MD, MS Kristen L. Knutson, PhD Tak W. Kwan, MD, FAHA Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Tené T. Lewis, PhD Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Matthew Shane Loop, PhD Pamela L. Lutsey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Andrew E. Moran, MD, MPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Martin O’Flaherty, MD, MSc, PhD Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS Amanda M. Perak, MD, MS Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, MS, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH, FAHA Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson, MD, MBA, MPH, FAHA Gary M. Satou, MD, FAHA Emily B. Schroeder, MD, PhD, FAHA Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, FAHA Nicole L. Spartano, PhD Andrew Stokes, PhD David L. Tirschwell, MD, MS, MSc, FAHA Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, Vice Chair Elect Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, MAS, FAHA Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, MSc, FAST John T. Wilkins, MD, MS, FAHA Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2018 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association.

Abstract: Each chapter listed in the Table of Contents (see next page) is a hyperlink to that chapter. The reader clicks the chapter name to access that chapter. Each chapter listed here is a hyperlink. Click on the chapter name to be taken to that chapter. Each year, the American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together in a single document the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and the cardiovascular risk factors listed in the AHA’s My Life Check - Life’s Simple 7 (Figure1), which include core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure [BP], and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update represents …

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2020 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Abstract: Background: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports on the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovas...

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2021 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association.

Abstract: Background: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascul...

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2022 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Abstract: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease, venous disease, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2022 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year's edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population and an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, adverse pregnancy outcomes, vascular contributions to brain health, and the global burden of cardiovascular disease and healthy life expectancy.Each of the chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policymakers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.