Abstract：
Paediatric track and trigger tools (PTTTs) based on vital parameters have been implemented in hospitals worldwide to help healthcare professionals identify signs of critical illness and incipient deterioration in hospitalised children. It has been documented that nurses do not use PTTT as intended, but deviate from PTTT protocols because, in some situations, PTTT observations make little sense to them. The present study aimed to reach consensus on whether automatically generated PTTT scores that are higher than deemed reasonable by healthcare professionals according to their professional experience and clinical expertise may be downgraded.
A two-round modified Delphi technique was used to explore consensus on 14 patient cases for hospitalised children with a high PTTT score that did not raise concerns by systematically collating questionnaire responses. Participants rated their level of agreement on a 9-point Likert scale. IQR and median were calculated for each case.
A total of 221 participants completed round 1 and 101 participants completed round 2. Across the two rounds, majority of the participants were from paediatric departments, nurses and women. In round 1, consensus on inclusion was reached on 2 of the 14 cases. In round 2, consensus was reached on one additional patient case. Three of the 11 non-consensus cases remaining after rounds 1 and 2 were included by the research group based on predefined criteria.
In conclusion, a consensus opinion was achieved on six patient cases where the child had a high PTTT score but where the healthcare professionals were not as concerned as indicated by the PTTT score.
A two-round modified Delphi technique was used to explore consensus on 14 patient cases for hospitalised children with a high PTTT score that did not raise concerns by systematically collating questionnaire responses. Participants rated their level of agreement on a 9-point Likert scale. IQR and median were calculated for each case.
A total of 221 participants completed round 1 and 101 participants completed round 2. Across the two rounds, majority of the participants were from paediatric departments, nurses and women. In round 1, consensus on inclusion was reached on 2 of the 14 cases. In round 2, consensus was reached on one additional patient case. Three of the 11 non-consensus cases remaining after rounds 1 and 2 were included by the research group based on predefined criteria.
In conclusion, a consensus opinion was achieved on six patient cases where the child had a high PTTT score but where the healthcare professionals were not as concerned as indicated by the PTTT score.
摘要：
基于重要参数的儿科跟踪和触发工具（PTTT）已在世界各地的医院中实施，以帮助医疗保健专业人员识别住院儿童的严重疾病和初期恶化的迹象。据记录，护士没有按照预期使用PTTT，但偏离PTTT协议，因为，在某些情况下,PTTT的观察对他们来说意义不大。本研究旨在就自动生成的PTTT分数是否高于医疗保健专业人员根据其专业经验和临床专业知识认为合理的分数是否可以降级达成共识。
使用两轮改良的Delphi技术，对14例PTTT得分较高的住院儿童患者进行共识，通过系统地整理问卷的回答，这些患者没有引起关注。参与者以9分的李克特量表对他们的协议水平进行了评分。计算每种情况的IQR和中位数。
共有221名参与者完成了第1轮，101名参与者完成了第2轮。在两轮中，大多数参与者来自儿科，护士和妇女。在第一轮中，就14个案件中的2个达成了关于纳入的共识。在第2轮中，就另一例患者病例达成共识。研究小组根据预定义的标准纳入了第1轮和第2轮之后剩余的11例非共识病例中的3例。
总之,对6例患儿的PTTT评分较高,但医疗保健专业人员的关注程度不如PTTT评分所显示的那样,达成了共识意见.
使用两轮改良的Delphi技术，对14例PTTT得分较高的住院儿童患者进行共识，通过系统地整理问卷的回答，这些患者没有引起关注。参与者以9分的李克特量表对他们的协议水平进行了评分。计算每种情况的IQR和中位数。
共有221名参与者完成了第1轮，101名参与者完成了第2轮。在两轮中，大多数参与者来自儿科，护士和妇女。在第一轮中，就14个案件中的2个达成了关于纳入的共识。在第2轮中，就另一例患者病例达成共识。研究小组根据预定义的标准纳入了第1轮和第2轮之后剩余的11例非共识病例中的3例。
总之,对6例患儿的PTTT评分较高,但医疗保健专业人员的关注程度不如PTTT评分所显示的那样,达成了共识意见.
