Background
It is well known that patients usually demonstrate preceding changes in physiological parameters prior to significant deterioration into a critical condition. Early warning system (EWS) or ‘track and trigger’ systems use numerical or colour coded systems to alert staff to dangerous trends in a patient’s physiological parameters and thus have the potential to identify patients at risk of further deterioration.3 Such systems can reduce in-hospital mortality and serious adverse events.4 The Royal College of Physicians recommend EWS for monitoring of all adult patients, and this has led to the development of a standardised National EWS in the UK.5
Standard EWS are not recommended for use in women who are pregnant as physiological parameters and their response to illness are modified in pregnancy.5 Previous reports from the UK Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the UK recommend using a modified EWS to assist in the identification of obstetric patients at risk of deterioration.6
A postal survey in the UK found that only 19% of maternity units were using an EWS in obstetric patients, and only 6% of units were using a system modified for parturients.7 The scoring systems used were not consistent in terms of physiological variables used, the layout of the charts or the trigger thresholds. At the time of writing, there is no nationally validated EWS for pregnant patients in the UK. However, many example charts have been proposed.
In 2013, one group of researchers from the UK used logistic regression to predict mortality in a sample of pregnant patients from a critical care database of over 4000 intensive care patients. In their analysis of the relationship between changes in individual vital signs and mortality, they were able to produce an early warning scoring system that is statistically weighted according to variables reflective of vital signs. This was then internally validated to produce a clinical EWS system that is tailored to obstetric patients. Work is ongoing to validate its use in other obstetric units.8
Work on EWS has taken place in many destinations outside the UK. A hospital in Auckland, New Zealand, has adopted a maternal early warning system (MEWS) into standard practice after a review of obstetric cases referred to intensive care found that a MEWS could have reduced the seriousness of maternal morbidity in 7.6% of cases.9
Currently, there is only a small amount of research into the benefits of EWS in low-resource settings. Kruisselbrink et al10 carried out a pilot study using a modified EWS at Mulago Hospital, Uganda. They evaluated a modified EWS as a mortality predictor and concluded the EWS could identify high-risk patients in a busy critical care environment. The use of Triage Early Warning Score (TEWS) has been suggested as one component of a scale called the South African Triage Scale produced by the South African Triage Group from the Division of Emergency Medicine at the Universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch and recommended by the Emergency Medicine Society of South Africa.11 This system assists with determining the urgency of medical treatment during triage in emergency departments. It has also been proposed as a useful assessment tool to analyse the efficacy of emergency care in developing countries.12
A report by Esegbona13 describes development of a training package that includes the introduction of a form of EWS, a track and trigger system called ChEWA (chatinkha early warning alarm). An alternative system has been trialled in Mbarara University Hospital, Uganda.14 The majority of patient care was identified as being provided by patient attendants and relatives, thus they deduced to implement a ‘lay MEWS’ for these attendants to compensate for nursing staff shortages.
The current study describes the process and potential impact of introducing a modified obstetric EWS (MOEWS) at FHRH, an Ethiopian referral hospital.
Measurement
A three-phase retrospective case note review was conducted over a 1-year period (December 2014–December 2015) coupled with staff questionnaires and semistructured interviews.
Prior to introduction of the MOEWS, a case note review of 20 postoperative obstetric cases was conducted over a 3-day period in December 2014 (16 LUSCS (lower uterine segment caesarean section), 2 MROP (manual removal of placenta) and 2 laparotomy). Vital signs were recorded regularly (15 min for 2 hours then hourly for 4 hours) for most cases in recovery (90%). However, this was usually incomplete with all of heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), respiratory rate (RR) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2)being recorded in only 55% cases. Oxygen saturations were recorded in only 35% cases and temperature in only 25%. Urine output was not recorded hourly in any cases. Recognition that suboptimal monitoring occurred in the postoperative period formed the rationale for introduction of the MOEWS system in FHRH.
The MOEWS system introduced was a recording chart for the patient’s vital signs. Within the chart were coloured ‘zones’. If vital signs were recorded within one of these coloured zones (a ‘trigger), then an action should be prompted. Yellow zone ‘triggers’ should prompt an increase in the frequency of monitoring, and red zone ‘triggers’ should prompt a medical review by a doctor. By transferring recorded vital signs from the case notes reviewed above to a sample MOEWS, it was noted that 50% (n=10) of cases would have triggered a red warning (n=10) in recovery, and 36% of these were recorded within 15 min of transfer from theatre. Medical review occurred in 30% (n=3). In 70% (n=7) of cases with a red zone trigger vital sign, no action was taken. No cases triggered a yellow warning.
Follow-up case note review was conducted at 8 months and 11 months postintroduction of MOEWS (20 cases and 40 cases, respectively) to determine practices and the potential impact of the MOEWS.
Paper-based questionnaires containing both closed and free-text response questions were distributed among healthcare workers (midwives, interns and residents) in the facility and were completed anonymously and at participant convenience. Questionnaires were conducted at 8 (n=24) and 11 months (n=34) to establish opinion on the system and any change in this over time. Consent was implied by questionnaire completion.
Semistructured face-to-face interviews (n=7) were conducted at 11 months (November 2015) with those who consented and were tape-recorded. Information leaflets were provided, and written consent was obtained. Interview questions were predesigned based on themes reflected in survey responses.
Data from the case note reviews were analysed using Microsoft Excel software. Responses to survey questions were analysed using descriptive statistics. Subgroup analysis was carried out between occupational groups. Free-choice responses and interview data were analysed qualitatively by identification of key themes.
Design
Following initial review, a MOEWS was designed after joint discussion with obstetricians, anaesthetists and management from FHRH. This included developing a MOEWS to meet the needs and resources at FHRH. The primary aim was to establish standardised observation and management of obstetric patients postoperatively, and a guideline was produced to accompany the MOEWS. The MOEWS was intended to be used in all postoperative patients on the obstetric ward, thus included all operative deliveries and postdelivery complications. The MOEWS was standardised and not adapted for specific conditions or surgeries. The main adaptations included adjustments to scales for vital signs recording to allow for the extremes in vital signs, which can be witnessed with late presentations to the referral hospital.
The MOEWS served to detect potential postoperative complications and prompt action earlier. The standard set for monitoring was every 15 min for 2 hours, then hourly for 4 hours thereafter and included appearance, respiratory rate, heart rate, blood pressure, conscious level, temperature, saturations, pain score and urine output. A vital sign in the red coloured zone was intended to trigger medical review, whereas the yellow area would indicate a need for more frequent monitoring, for example, return to 15 min intervals, or increase to 5 min intervals if within first 2 hours. In addition, if a trend was noted in the observations that indicated deterioration, medical review was indicated.
Training was provided to accompany the introduction of the MOEWS and its associated guideline, provided by both internal senior clinicians and external visiting clinicians familiar with MOEWS, and this was repeated following each monitoring period.
Strategy
Repeated periods of monitoring and evaluation allowed assessment of the impact of the MOEWS on patient care, and allowed identification of problems and barriers to use of the MOEWS or compliance with monitoring guidelines. Through staff feedback in the form of questionnaire survey and interviews, attitudes towards the system could be ascertained, and staff were able to make suggestions for improvement, for example, alteration to MOEWS chart layout.