Impact of Electronic Versus Paper Vital Sign Observations on Length of Stay in Trauma Patients: Stepped-Wedge, Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic recording of vital sign observations (e-Obs) has become increasingly prevalent in hospital care. The evidence of clinical impact for these systems is mixed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess the effect of e-Obs versus paper documentation (paper) on length of stay (time between trauma unit admission and "fit to discharge") for trauma patients. METHODS: A single-center, randomized stepped-wedge study of e-Obs against paper was conducted in two 26-bed trauma wards at a medium-sized UK teaching hospital. Randomization of the phased intervention order to 12 study areas was computer generated. The primary outcome was length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 1232 patient episodes were randomized (paper: 628, e-Obs: 604). There were 37 deaths in hospital: 21 in the paper arm and 16 in the e-Obs arm. For discharged patients, the median length of stay was 5.4 (range: 0.2-79.0) days on the paper arm and 5.6 (range: 0.1-236.7) days on the e-Obs arm. Competing risks regression analysis for time to discharge showed no difference between the treatment arms (subhazard ratio: 1.05; 95% CI 0.82-1.35; P=.68). A greater proportion of patient episodes contained an Early Warning Score (EWS) ≥3 using the e-Obs system than using paper (subhazard ratio: 1.63; 95% CI 1.28-2.09; P<.001). However, there was no difference in the time to the subsequent observation, "escalation time" (hazard ratio 1.05; 95% CI 0.80-1.38; P=.70). CONCLUSIONS: The phased introduction of an e-Obs documentation system was not associated with a change in length of stay. A greater proportion of patient episodes contained an EWS≥3 using the e-Obs system, but this was not associated with a change in "escalation time." TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN91040762; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN91040762 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/72prakGTU).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".