Medical emergencies in hospital: The role of treatment escalation plans in out-of-hours decision-making

BACKGROUND

Out-of-hours medical emergencies are common in acute hospitals, and are often attended by staff who are unfamiliar with the patient's clinical background. Information in the hospital notes may or may not include guidance about how best to deal with clinical deterioration. The use of Treatment Escalation Plans (TEPs) attempts to address these deficiencies.

METHODS

This was an observational, questionnaire-based evaluation of the experience of trainee hospital doctors who attended out-of-hours medical emergencies.

RESULTS

Sixty-five medical emergencies were evaluated by a total of 38 doctors. Thirty patients had a TEP, attended by 20 doctors, and 35 without a TEP were attended by 27 doctors. Information from medical notes to facilitate decision-making was deemed sufficient by the attending doctor in 77% of patients with a TEP, compared to 54% of patients with no TEP. Only 10% of patients with a TEP had their treatment escalated at the time of the call, whereas this occurred in 20% of patients without a TEP (NS). A TEP was deemed 'somewhat' or 'very' helpful by trainees in 21/30 of the cases who had one. In 27/35 cases who did not have a TEP, trainees deemed that it would have been helpful to have had one. Twelve of 38 participants (32%) considered that there was a discrepancy between what was 'expected' and what they considered to be 'right' when managing out-of-hours emergencies.

CONCLUSION

TEPs have an important role in delivering key information that shapes out-of-hours decision-making in deteriorating patients. Both objective outcomes and the subjective quality of medical decision-making are enhanced when a TEP is available.

Patient characteristics of, and remedial interventions for, complaints and medico-legal claims against doctors: a rapid review of the literature

BACKGROUND

It is uncertain if patient's characteristics are associated with complaints and claims against doctors. Additionally, evidence for the effectiveness of remedial interventions on rates of complaints and claims against doctors has not been synthesised.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review of recent literature to answer: Question 1 "What are the common characteristics and circumstances of patients who are most likely to complain or bring a claim about the care they have received from a doctor?" and Question 2 "What initiatives or interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing complaints and claims about the care patients have received from a doctor?". We used a systematic search (most recently in July 2023) of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature. Studies were screened against inclusion criteria and critically appraised in duplicate using standard tools. Results were summarised using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

From 8079 search results, we reviewed the full text of 250 studies. We included 25 studies: seven for Question 1 (6 comparative studies with controls and one systematic review) and 18 studies for Question 2 (14 uncontrolled pre-post studies, 2 comparative studies with controls and 2 systematic reviews). Most studies were set in hospitals across a mix of medical specialties. Other than for patients with mental health conditions (two studies), no other patient characteristics demonstrated either a strong or consistent effect on the rate of complaints or claims against their treating doctors. Risk management programs (6 studies), and communication and resolution programs (5 studies) were the most studied of 6 intervention types. Evidence for reducing complaints and medico-legal claims, costs or premiums and more timely management was apparent for both types of programs. Only 1 to 3 studies were included for peer programs, medical remediation, shared decision-making, simulation training and continuing professional development, with few generalisable results.

CONCLUSION

Few patient characteristics can be reliably related to the likelihood of medico-legal complaints or claims. There is some evidence that interventions can reduce the number and costs of claims, the number of complaints, and the timeliness of claims. However, across both questions, the strength of the evidence is very weak and is based on only a few studies or study designs that are highly prone to bias.

Using Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool to Evaluate Patient Complaints during the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Medical Center in Taiwan

The purpose of this study is to evaluate patient complaints using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 in Taiwan. Additionally, the study examines the distribution and type of patient complaints before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide a better clinical procedure, hospital management and patient relationship. This study utilizes a cross-sectional design. We collected patient complaints from January 2021 to December 2021 at a medical center in Southern Taiwan. Using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT), the patient complaints are classified and coded into three major domains (clinical, management and relationship), and seven problem categories (quality, safety, environment, institutional process, respect and patient rights, listening and communication). We further compared and categorized the complaints based on whether they were COVID-19-related or not and whether it was before or during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand the differences in patient complaints. In total, we collected 584 events of patient complaints. Based on the HCAT domains, the complaints about management were the highest, at 52.9%, followed by complaints about relationship, about 37.7%. According to the types of problem, the complaints about the environment were the highest, about 32.5% (190/584), followed by communication at about 29.6% (173/584), and institutional process at about 20.4% (119/584). There were 178 COVID-19-related complaints and they were made more frequently during Q3 and Q4 (from mid-June to December) which was the pandemic period in 2021 in Taiwan. Among the COVID-19-related complaints, the most frequent were in the environment domain with 114 cases (about 65.7% of COVID-19-related complaints). The domains of patient complaints were statistically different between COVID-19-related and non-related (p < 0.001). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of COVID-19-related complaints increased 1.67 times (117/312 vs. 61/272, p < 0.001). Both prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, management-related complaints represented the highest domain. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of infectious disease prevention and control policies and actions may have developed some inconvenience and difficulty in seeking medical practice and process. These characteristics (complaints) are more prominent, and timely and patient-first consideration is required immediately to build up better clinical procedures, the healthcare environment and comprehensive communication. Using the HCAT can allow health centers or health practitioners to understand the needs and demands of patients through complaints, provide friendly medical and health services, avoid unequal information transmission, build trust in doctor−patient relationships and improve patients’ safety.

Responding to the deteriorating patient: The rationale for treatment escalation plans

A Treatment Escalation Plan (TEP) is a communication tool designed to improve quality of care in hospital, particularly if patients deteriorate. The aims are to reduce variation caused by discontinuity of care; avoid harms caused by inappropriate treatment and promote patients’ priorities and preferences. The TEP is based on the goals of treatment – ‘What are we trying to achieve?’ The goals take account of the context of acute illness, the consequences of interventions and discussion with the patient. They should reflect a shift away from ‘fix-it’ medicine to what is realistic and pragmatic. A TEP has three escalation categories: full escalation, selected appropriate treatments and palliative/supportive care. Other appropriate/inappropriate treatments are also recorded. Treatment Escalation Plans are associated with significant reductions in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, non-beneficial interventions, harms and complaints. Treatment Escalation Plans contribute to staff well-being by reducing uncertainty. Successful implementation requires training and education in medical decision-making and communication skills.

The adaptation of the 'Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool' for general practice

BACKGROUND

Patient complaints about care in general practice are underutilized as a source of safety improvement data.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to adapt a secondary care complaints analysis tool for use in general practice contexts and assess the validity, reliability and usability of the adapted tool.

METHODS

The study was conducted in two phases. Phase A: The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) designed for use in secondary care was adapted for use in general practice using an iterative six-stage process. Phase B: Participants from key stakeholder groups [General practitioners (n = 5), complaints managers (n = 9), health service researchers (n = 4)]. Participants completed an online survey and analysed 20 fictionalized patient complaints using the adapted tool. Inter-rater reliability and agreement with a referent standard were analysed using Gwet's AC1 statistic.

RESULTS

Phase A: The HCAT was adapted to the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (General Practice) [HCAT(GP)]. The HCAT(GP) tool consists of three domains (clinical, management and relationship problems), and seven categories. The HCAT(GP) had both content and face validity. Phase B: Inter-rater reliability was substantial for the HCAT(GP) categories (Gwet's AC1 = 0.65). Within-group agreement on the seven HCAT(GP) categories was substantial to perfect (AC1 0.61-0.85). Participants had substantial to perfect agreement with the referent standard across the survey with a mean AC1 of 0.899 (Range 0.76-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports the adaptation of the HCAT(GP) and has established that the tool has sufficient validity, reliability and usability. This adapted tool can be applied to general practice complaints to identify areas for improvement.