Recognition of patients who require emergency assistance: A descriptive study
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the patient characteristics and the process of recognition nurses use to recognize patients about whom they are seriously worried. Design The study design was qualitative, exploratory, and descriptive, and it used in-depth interviews and a purposive sample. Setting The study setting included a teaching hospital and a peripheral hospital in a Sydney area health service. Participants Participants included registered nurses (N = 32) with 5 or more years of experience and a history of calling the medical emergency team (MET). Mean years of experience as a registered nurse was 14 years, and the mean calls to the MET since employed in current hospital was 16 calls. Findings Primary findings showed that nurses relied on 4 patient characteristics to apply the MET criterion, "seriously worried about a patient." These 4 characteristics were (1) feeling "not right," (2) color, (3) agitation, and (4) observations marginally changed or not changed at all. The process used to gather and interpret information to recognize these patients who were deteriorating involved touching, observing, listening, feeling or sensing, and "knowing." In this process of recognition, nurses relied heavily on past experiences and knowledge to detect differences in patient condition. Conclusions The 4 characteristics need to be included as an explanation for the MET criterion, "seriously worried about a patient." Additional validation and refinemen…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Evidence for escalation of medical interventions based on nurses' concerns has long remained classified as level 5 evidence (expert opinion).
“Evidence for escalation of medical interventions based on nurses’ concerns has long remained classified as level 5 evidence (expert opinion)15–20.”
From Real-time surveillance system for patient deterioration: a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial (2025) · cites this paper as [19]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 114
- Authors
- Cioffi, J.
- Affiliations
- Western Sydney University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Cioffi, Jane
- ORCID
- Cioffi, Jane
- Venue
- Heart & Lung
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-07
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 262-268
- ISSN
- 0147-9563 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2137476191
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Heart & Lung (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Keywords
- patient deterioration recognition, medical emergency team, patient characteristics, early warning signs, clinical decision-making, nurses' experiences
- MeSH terms
- Australia, Decision Making, Emergencies, Emergency Medicine, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Nursing Diagnosis, Patients, Severity of Illness Index, Clinical Nursing Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review