Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based paediatric early warning system improvement programme: the PUMA mixed methods study

Davina Allen*, Amy Lloyd, Dawn Edwards, Kerenza Hood, Chao Huang, Jacqueline Hughes, Nina Jacob, David Lacy, Yvonne Moriarty, Alison Oliver, Jennifer Preston, Gerri Sefton, Ian Sinha, Richard Skone, Heather Strange, Khadijeh Taiyari, Emma Thomas-Jones, Rob Trubey, Lyvonne Tume, Colin PowellDamian Roland

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (journal)peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Paediatric mortality rates in the United Kingdom are amongst the highest in Europe. Clinically missed deterioration is a contributory factor. Evidence to support any single intervention to address this problem is limited, but a cumulative body of research highlights the need for a systems approach. Methods: An evidence-based, theoretically informed, paediatric early warning system improvement programme (PUMA Programme) was developed and implemented in two general hospitals (no onsite Paediatric Intensive Care Unit) and two tertiary hospitals (with onsite Paediatric Intensive Care Unit) in the United Kingdom. Designed to harness local expertise to implement contextually appropriate improvement initiatives, the PUMA Programme includes a propositional model of a paediatric early warning system, system assessment tools, guidance to support improvement initiatives and structured facilitation and support. Each hospital was evaluated using interrupted time series and qualitative case studies. The primary quantitative outcome was a composite metric (adverse events), representing the number of children monthly that experienced one of the following: mortality, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, unplanned admission to Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, or unplanned admission to Higher Dependency Unit. System changes were assessed qualitatively through observations of clinical practice and interviews with staff and parents. A qualitative evaluation of implementation processes was undertaken. Results: All sites assessed their paediatric early warning systems and identified areas for improvement. All made contextually appropriate system changes, despite implementation challenges. There was a decline in the adverse event rate trend in three sites; in one site where system wide changes were organisationally supported, the decline was significant (ß = -0.09 (95% CI: − 0.15, − 0.05); p = < 0.001). Changes in trends coincided with implementation of site-specific changes. Conclusions: System level change to improve paediatric early warning systems can bring about positive impacts on clinical outcomes, but in paediatric practice, where the patient population is smaller and clinical outcomes event rates are low, alternative outcome measures are required to support research and quality improvement beyond large specialist centres, and methodological work on rare events is indicated. With investment in the development of alternative outcome measures and methodologies, programmes like PUMA could improve mortality and morbidity in paediatrics and other patient populations.

Original languageEnglish
Article number9
JournalBMC Health Services Research
Volume22
Issue number1
Early online date2 Jan 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Jan 2022

Keywords

  • Healthcare improvement
  • Paediatric early warning systems
  • Quality improvement

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based paediatric early warning system improvement programme: the PUMA mixed methods study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this