Improving Supplemental Oxygen Documentation within Medicine for Older People

Poster ID
n/a
Authors' names
Dr Hannah Day, Dr Emma Bickerstaff, Dr Georgia Edwards
Author's provenances
Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Abstract

Introduction: Patient observations and corresponding National Early Warning Score (NEWS) are valuable components in the identification of patient deterioration. NEWS is particularly important in our older population, whereby presentation of acute illness can be atypical and non-specific. Oxygen saturation and subsequent supplemental oxygen requirement are fundamental components of the NEWS, predicting delirium development, critical care admission and inpatient mortality. Consequently, inaccurate recording has implications for patient safety.

Aim: To improve the accuracy of supplemental oxygen documentation in patient observations within medicine for older people.

Methodology: The FiO2 percentage documented on patient observations was compared to the FiO2 being administered. Accuracy was assessed for three days a week over three weeks across three wards. Questionnaires were distributed to staff within the department assessing confidence recording supplemental oxygen and barriers to accurate documentation. Conversion charts between FiO2 and L/min formats were then introduced and accuracy reassessed.

Results: At baseline, supplemental oxygen was documented incorrectly in 52% of patient observations. 40.5% of staff members reported feeling ‘not confident’ when documenting or interpreting supplemental oxygen using FiO2 percentage and 81% felt more confident using L/min format. The most frequent barriers were lack of teaching (89%) and lack of understanding (62%). Following the introduction of conversion charts a 9% increase in the accuracy of supplemental oxygen documentation was observed. 

Conclusion: Pre-intervention, correct documentation of supplemental oxygen was unsatisfactorily low given potential implications for patient safety. Post-intervention, improvement was seen however the level of incorrect documentation remains high. Further interventions are planned to improve this further.

Presentation

Comments

Thanks for the talk-oxygen prescription is generally a bit of a nightmare and highly variable wherever you are, and it was nice to hear that you are trying to improve this. 

Was there a difference in the confidence of the different members of staff you asked to complete questionnaires based on their role? In my experience the nursing staff are predominantly the ones who would be documenting the FiO2 being inspired on the observations, did their confidence improve with your intervention? 

Submitted by Dr Jonathan Bunn DR on

Permalink

Thanks Jonathan 

 

Differences in confidence varied greatly between job roles. Our questionnaire was completed by healthcare assistants, nurses, doctors and physiotherapists. Nursing staff were the most common contributers. 

 

Confidence was assessed on a 5 point scale- not confident, slightly, somewhat, fairly and very confident. 

If you look at the two ends of responses, within not and slightly confident responses, 56% are nurses, 67% are HCAs and 33% are doctors. On the opposite end within fairly and very confident responses, 67% are doctors, 38% are nurses, 33% are HCAs and 100% are physios.

 

This suggests doctors and physiotherapists feel more confident than nursing and HCA colleagues, which we felt was unexpected, as you mention our nursing colleagues are more frequently documenting observations. 

 

Following our intervention we did not reassess subjective confidence, we plan to readdress this after further planned interventions.