How human factors affect escalation of care: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis of studies

Improving Communication and Response to Clinical Deterioration to Increase Patient Safety in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

In the critical care setting, early recognition of clinical decompensation is imperative to trigger prompt intervention and optimize patient outcomes.

LOCAL PROBLEM

In a 20-bed surgical intensive care unit of an urban academic medical center, cases of clinical deterioration that highlighted opportunities to improve the communication process prompted a reassessment of health care provider roles and responsibilities.

METHODS

A quality improvement initiative was implemented to enhance communication among intensive care unit clinical staff members, improve the timeliness of reporting clinical deterioration, and ensure implementation of timely, appropriate interventions to eliminate adverse outcomes.

INTERVENTIONS

Nurses were surveyed to determine their perceptions of communication and collaboration among providers. Education was provided that focused on familiarizing nurses with clinical conditions necessitating direct notification of the attending surgical intensivist and included review of a case in which escalation of care did not occur. Multidisciplinary rounds were expanded to engage night-shift nurses in clinical discussions and decision-making. A template was created to document episodes of escalation in the electronic health record.

RESULTS

Since implementation of the quality improvement interventions, no incidents of patient harm or death related to failure to escalate have occurred to date. A total of 16 episodes of escalation for clinical deterioration were documented in the electronic health record. Most nurses reported an increased level of confidence in understanding when to escalate concerns about clinical deterioration.

CONCLUSION

Implementing a multimodal program to empower nurses to escalate clinical concerns directly to the attending physician eliminated adverse events related to failure to escalate.

Clinicians' attitudes towards escalation and management of deteriorating patients: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Internationally, rapid response systems have been implemented to recognise and categorise hospital patients at risk of deterioration. Whilst rapid response systems have been implemented with a varying amount of success, there remains ongoing concern about the lack of improvement in the escalation, and management of the deteriorating patient. It also remains unclear why some clinicians fail to escalate concerns for the deteriorating patient.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore clinicians' attitudes towards the escalation, and management of the deteriorating patient.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey of conveniently sampled clinicians from the acute care sector in a regional health district in Australia was conducted. The Clinicians' Attitudes towards Responding and Escalating care of Deteriorating patients scale, was used to explore attitudes towards the escalation and management of the deteriorating patient.

RESULTS

Survey responses were received from medical officers (n = 43), nurses (n = 677), allied health clinicians (n = 60), and students (n = 57). Years of experience was significantly associated with more confidence responding to deteriorating patients (p < .001) and significantly less fears about escalating care (p < .001). Nurses (M = 4.16, SD = .57) and students (M = 4.11, SD = .55) in general had significantly greater positive beliefs that the rapid response system would support them to respond to the deteriorating patient than allied health (M = 3.67, SD = .64) and medical (M = 3.87, SD = .54) clinicians, whilst nurses and medical clinicians had significantly less fear about escalating care and greater confidence in responding to deteriorating patients than allied health clinicians and healthcare students (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Nurses and medical officers have less fear to escalate care and greater confidence responding to the deteriorating patient than allied health clinicians and students. Whilst the majority of participants had positive perceptions towards the rapid response system, those with less experience lacked the confidence to escalate care and respond to the deteriorating patient.

Human factors in escalating acute ward care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Background

Identifying how human factors affect clinical staff recognition and managment of the deteriorating ward patient may inform process improvements. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify (1) how human factors affect ward care escalation (2) gaps in the current literature and (3) critique literature methodologies.

Methods

We undertook a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of care escalation studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINHAL from inception to September 2019. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment-Development and Evaluation and Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool to assess study quality.

Results

Our search identified 24 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Confidence in findings was moderate (20 studies) to high (4 studies). In 16 studies, the ability to recognise changes in the patient’s condition (soft signals), including skin colour/temperature, respiratory pattern, blood loss, personality change, patient complaint and fatigue, improved the ability to escalate patients. Soft signals were detected through patient assessment (looking/listening/feeling) and not Early Warning Scores (eight studies). In contrast, 13 studies found a high workload and low staffing levels reduced staff’s ability to detect patient deterioration and escalate care. In eight studies quantifiable deterioration evidence (Early Warning Scores) facilitated escalation communication, particularly when referrer/referee were unfamiliar. Conversely, escalating concerning non-triggering patients was challenging but achieved by some clinical staff (three studies). Team decision making facilitated the clinical escalation (six studies).

Conclusions

Early Warning Scores have clinical benefits but can sometimes impede escalation in patients not meeting the threshold. Staff use other factors (soft signals) not captured in Early Warning Scores to escalate care. The literature supports strategies that improve the escalation process such as good patient assessment skills.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42018104745.