BACKGROUND: Emergency Department (ED) care is provided for a diverse range of patients, clinical acuity and conditions. This diversity often calls for different vital signs monitoring requirements. Requirements often change depending on the circumstances that patients experience during episodes of ED care.
OBJECTIVE: To describe expert consensus on vital signs monitoring during ED care in the Australasian setting to inform the content of a joint Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and College of Emergency Nursing Australasia (CENA) position statement on vital signs monitoring in the ED.
METHODS: A 4-hour online nominal group technique workshop with follow up surveys.
RESULTS: Twelve expert ED nurses and doctors from adult, paediatric and mixed metropolitan and regional ED and research facilities spanning four Australian states participated in the workshop and follow up surveys. Consensus building generated 14 statements about vital signs monitoring in ED. Good consensus was reached on whether vital signs should be assessed for 15 of 19 circumstances that patients may experience.
CONCLUSIONS: This study informed the creation of a joint position statement on vital signs monitoring in the Australasian ED setting, endorsed by CENA and ACEM. Empirical evidence is needed for optimal, safe and achievable policy on this fundamental practice.

OBJECTIVE: To determine consensus across acute care specialty areas on core physical assessment skills necessary for early recognition of changes in patient status in general wards.
BACKGROUND: Current approaches to physical assessment are inconsistent and have not evolved to meet increased patient and system demands. New models of nursing assessment are needed in general wards that ensure a proactive and patient safety approach.
METHODS: A modified Delphi study.
METHODS: Focus group interviews with 150 acute care registered nurses at a large tertiary referral hospital generated a framework of core skills that were developed into a web-based survey. We then sought consensus with a panel of 35 senior acute care registered nurses following a classical Delphi approach over three rounds. Consensus was predefined as at least 80% agreement for each skill across specialty areas.
RESULTS: Content analysis of focus group transcripts identified 40 discrete core physical assessment skills. In the Delphi rounds, 16 of these were consensus validated as core skills and were conceptually aligned with the primary survey: (Airway) Assess airway patency; (Breathing) Measure respiratory rate, Evaluate work of breathing, Measure oxygen saturation; (Circulation) Palpate pulse rate and rhythm, Measure blood pressure by auscultation, Assess urine output; (Disability) Assess level of consciousness, Evaluate speech, Assess for pain; (Exposure) Measure body temperature, Inspect skin integrity, Inspect and palpate skin for signs of pressure injury, Observe any wounds, dressings, drains and invasive lines, Observe ability to transfer and mobilise, Assess bowel movements.
CONCLUSIONS: Among a large and diverse group of experienced acute care registered nurses consensus was achieved on a structured core physical assessment to detect early changes in patient status.
CONCLUSIONS: Although further research is needed to refine the model, clinical application should promote systematic assessment and clinical reasoning at the bedside.

Most patients who undergo surgical procedures experience acute postoperative pain, but evidence suggests that less than half report adequate postoperative pain relief. Many preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative interventions and management strategies are available for reducing and managing postoperative pain. The American Pain Society, with input from the American Society of Anesthesiologists, commissioned an interdisciplinary expert panel to develop a clinical practice guideline to promote evidence-based, effective, and safer postoperative pain management in children and adults. The guideline was subsequently approved by the American Society for Regional Anesthesia. As part of the guideline development process, a systematic review was commissioned on various aspects related to various interventions and management strategies for postoperative pain. After a review of the evidence, the expert panel formulated recommendations that addressed various aspects of postoperative pain management, including preoperative education, perioperative pain management planning, use of different pharmacological and nonpharmacological modalities, organizational policies, and transition to outpatient care. The recommendations are based on the underlying premise that optimal management begins in the preoperative period with an assessment of the patient and development of a plan of care tailored to the individual and the surgical procedure involved. The panel found that evidence supports the use of multimodal regimens in many situations, although the exact components of effective multimodal care will vary depending on the patient, setting, and surgical procedure. Although these guidelines are based on a systematic review of the evidence on management of postoperative pain, the panel identified numerous research gaps. Of 32 recommendations, 4 were assessed as being supported by high-quality evidence, and 11 (in the areas of patient education and perioperative planning, patient assessment, organizational structures and policies, and transitioning to outpatient care) were made on the basis of low-quality evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: This guideline, on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence on postoperative pain management, provides recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Safe and effective postoperative pain management should be on the basis of a plan of care tailored to the individual and the surgical procedure involved, and multimodal regimens are recommended in many situations.