ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Quality improvement initiative: use of the STOP-BANG score and monitoring to reduce adverse events in hospitalised patients at risk of obstructive sleep apnoea.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObstructive sleep apnoea increases risk of respiratory depression with administration of sedatives, narcotics or anxiolytics. To reduce adverse events during hospital admission, we implemented STOP-BANG screening to prompt respiratory monitoring for inpatients receiving these medications. This study reports on protocol development, implementation and an initial analysis over 5 years to evaluate implementation success and outcomes.
interventionThe STOP-BANG measure was embedded in the nurse navigator at admission. If the score was ≥3 and sedatives, narcotics and/or anxiolytics were ordered, the provider was prompted to monitor patients with continuous pulse oximetry and/or capnography.
methodsWe assessed the impact of the intervention using a retrospective pre-post design. Preprotocol data from all adult inpatients over a 2.5-year period, and postprotocol data from all adult inpatients from over a 5-year period, were extracted from the electronic health record. Outcomes included use of monitoring; adverse events during hospitalisation were included to evaluate the effects of the intervention: mortality, rate of rapid response team events, reversal and/or rescue, intensive care unit admission and orders for positive airway pressure equipment.
resultsThe combined preprotocol and postprotocol sample included 254 121 patients. After protocol implementation, overall mortality for patients receiving sedatives, narcotics or anxiolytics decreased slightly from 2.1% to 1.9% (p<0.001). In the postprotocol cohort only (n=193 744), monitored patients had a higher probability of experiencing all adverse events. Among monitored patients, mortality was lowest in the high-risk group (STOP-BANG≥5). DISCUSSION: Triaging by STOP-BANG coupled with monitoring appeared to be helpful for patients at highest risk of obstructive sleep apnoea. Given the complexity of obstructive sleep apnoea, further pursuit of subphenotypes is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.