Purpose:
To identify the barriers to, and facilitators of, the implementation of physiological track and trigger systems (PTTSs), perceived by healthcare workers, through a systematic review of the extant qualitative literature.
Data Sources:
Searches were performed in PUBMED, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase and Web of Science. The reference lists of included studies were also screened.
Study Selection:
The electronic searches yielded 2727 papers. After removing duplicates, and further screening, a total of 10 papers were determined to meet the inclusion criteria and were reviewed.
Data Extraction:
A deductive content analysis approach was taken to organizing and analysing the data. A framework consisting of two overarching dimensions ('User-related changes required to implement PTTSs effectively' and 'Factors that affect user-related changes'), 5 themes (staff perceptions of PTTSs and patient safety, workflow adjustment, PTTS, implementation process and local context) and 14 sub themes was used to classify the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of PTTSs.
Results Of Data Synthesis:
Successful implementation of a PTTS must address the social context in which it is to be implemented by ensuring that the users believe that the system is effective and benefits patient care. The users must feel invested in the PTTS and its use must be supported by training to ensure that all healthcare workers, senior and junior, understand their role in using the system.
Conclusion:
PTTSs can improve patient safety and quality of care. However, there is a need for a robust implementation strategy or the benefits of PTTSs will not be realized.
Citing Articles
Integrating patient and public involvement into co-design of healthcare improvement: a case study in maternity care.
Attal B, Leeding J, VAN DER Scheer J, Barry Z, Crookes E, Igwe S
BMC Health Serv Res. 2025; 25(1):352.
PMID: 40055700
PMC: 11889828.
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-025-12423-3.
Detecting and responding to deterioration of a baby during labour: surveys of maternity professionals to inform co-design and implementation of a new standardised approach.
VAN DER Scheer J, Blott M, Dixon-Woods M, Olsson A, Moxey J, Kelly S
BMJ Open. 2025; 15(3):e084578.
PMID: 40050068
PMC: 11887309.
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084578.
How to co-design a prototype of a clinical practice tool: a framework with practical guidance and a case study.
Woodward M, Dixon-Woods M, Randall W, Walker C, Hughes C, Blackwell S
BMJ Qual Saf. 2023; 33(4):258-270.
PMID: 38124136
PMC: 10982632.
DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016196.
Nurses' and Physicians' Ideas on Initiatives for Effective Use of the Early Warning Score: A Participatory Study.
Molgaard R, Jorgensen L, Gronkjaer M, Madsen J, Christensen E, Voldbjerg S
Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2023; 10:23333936231210147.
PMID: 38028737
PMC: 10676632.
DOI: 10.1177/23333936231210147.
The COVID-19 Pandemic's impact on sustainability and expansion of a Pediatric Early Warning System in resource-limited hospitals.
Wiphatphumiprates P, Graetz D, Ferrara G, Puerto-Torres M, Gillipelli S, Elish P
Cancer Med. 2023; 12(10):11878-11888.
PMID: 37022012
PMC: 10242859.
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5876.
Determinants of implementing artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support tools in healthcare: a scoping review protocol.
Bajgain B, Lorenzetti D, Lee J, Sauro K
BMJ Open. 2023; 13(2):e068373.
PMID: 36822813
PMC: 9950925.
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068373.
The United Kingdom's National Early Warning Score: should everyone use it? A narrative review.
Holland M, Kellett J
Intern Emerg Med. 2023; 18(2):573-583.
PMID: 36602553
PMC: 9813902.
DOI: 10.1007/s11739-022-03189-1.
Assessment of Barriers and Enablers to Implementation of a Pediatric Early Warning System in Resource-Limited Settings.
Agulnik A, Ferrara G, Puerto-Torres M, Gillipelli S, Elish P, Muniz-Talavera H
JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(3):e221547.
PMID: 35262714
PMC: 8908074.
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.1547.
Measuring and monitoring patient safety in hospitals in Saudi Arabia.
Kaud Y, Lydon S, OConnor P
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1):1224.
PMID: 34772409
PMC: 8588732.
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-07228-z.
Nurses' Experiences and Perceptions of two Early Warning Score systems to Identify Patient Deterioration-A Focus Group Study.
Langkjaer C, Bove D, Nielsen P, Iversen K, Bestle M, Bunkenborg G
Nurs Open. 2021; 8(4):1788-1796.
PMID: 33638617
PMC: 8186715.
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.821.
Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies.
Harrison R, Jones B, Gardner P, Lawton R
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1):144.
PMID: 33588842
PMC: 7885606.
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06122-y.
Artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support in modern medical physics: Selection, acceptance, commissioning, and quality assurance.
Mahadevaiah G, Rv P, Bermejo I, Jaffray D, Dekker A, Wee L
Med Phys. 2020; 47(5):e228-e235.
PMID: 32418341
PMC: 7318221.
DOI: 10.1002/mp.13562.
Introducing the National Early Warning Score - A qualitative study of hospital nurses' perceptions and reactions.
Jensen J, Skar R, Tveit B
Nurs Open. 2019; 6(3):1067-1075.
PMID: 31367432
PMC: 6650757.
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.291.
Using the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) outside acute hospital settings: a qualitative study of staff experiences in the West of England.
Brangan E, Banks J, Brant H, Pullyblank A, Le Roux H, Redwood S
BMJ Open. 2018; 8(10):e022528.
PMID: 30368449
PMC: 6224740.
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022528.
Potential value of patient record review to assess and improve patient safety in general practice: A systematic review.
Madden C, Lydon S, Curran C, Murphy A, OConnor P
Eur J Gen Pract. 2018; 24(1):192-201.
PMID: 30112925
PMC: 6104614.
DOI: 10.1080/13814788.2018.1491963.