Aim: The aim of this review was to identify and synthesise published accounts of recognising and responding to patient deterioration in the presence of deterioration antecedents. Design: The systematic review canvassed four electronic databases/ search engines for studies of adult ward patients who had altered physiological parameters before developing major adverse events. Synthesis Methods: The findings were synthesised using a narrative approach. Results: Clinical deterioration can be missed by nurses, even with adequate charting. Delays in recognising and responding to patient deterioration remains an international patient safety concern, and strategies to enhance recognition of patient deterioration have not achieved consistent improvements. The lack of significant and sustained improvement through targeted training suggests the problem may be rooted in human behaviour and local ward culture. Nurses play a pivotal role in recognising and responding to patient deterioration; however, patient records do not facilitate tracking of all nurse decisions and actions, and any undocumented care cannot be easily captured by auditing processes. Conclusion: Failure to recognise clinical deterioration was evident even with adequate charting. It is not clear if nurses do not recognise clinical deterioration because they failed to interpret the signs of deterioration or they made a conscious decision not to escalate based on their clinical judgement or they lacked attention at the time of the event. Whatever the reason, focus is warranted for nurses' decisionmaking after the recording of clinical deterioration signs and the role of human factors in delayed recognition, before maximum benefit of any strategy can be achieved.
Background: Hip arthroscopy is now commonly used to treat hip pain and pathology, including osteoarthritis (OA). Despite this, little is known about the effect of hip arthroscopy on outcomes of pain and function and progression to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in hip OA. Questions/purposes: This systematic review aimed to (1) determine pain and function outcomes after hip arthroscopy in people with hip OA; (2) compare the outcome after hip arthroscopy between people with and without hip OA; and (3) report the likelihood of progression to THA in patients with hip OA after hip arthroscopy. Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The Downs and Black checklist was used for quality appraisal. Studies scoring positively on at least 50% of items were included in final analyses. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated where possible or study conclusions are presented. Results: Twenty-two studies were included in the final analyses. Methodological quality and followup time varied widely. Moderate to large SMDs were reported for people with and without hip OA; however, the positive effects of the intervention were smaller for people with hip OA. Greater severity of hip OA and older age each predicted more rapid progression to THA. Conclusions: Patients with hip OA report positive outcomes from hip arthroscopy, although observed positive effects may be inflated as a result of methodological limitations of the included studies. Patients with hip OA had inferior results compared with those who did not. Chondropathy severity and patient age were associated with a higher risk and more rapid progression to THA. High-quality comparative studies are required to confirm the effects of hip arthroscopy on symptoms and structural change in people with hip OA.