Using NEWS2: an essential component of reliable clinical assessment.

The National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) is the established track and trigger system to assess illness severity and risk of deterioration for patients in acute episodes of care in the UK. It is also increasingly used internationally. In this article, we outline established and recommended practice for initial and ongoing assessment. We also highlight where practice may not meet these standards, how the full context and assessment of the patient is paramount, and opportunities for more accurate assessment in the future.

Selecting intervention content to target barriers and enablers of recognition and response to deteriorating patients: an online nominal group study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who deteriorate in hospital wards without appropriate recognition and/or response are at risk of increased morbidity and mortality. Track-and-trigger tools have been implemented internationally prompting healthcare practitioners (typically nursing staff) to recognise physiological changes (e.g. changes in blood pressure, heart rate) consistent with patient deterioration, and then to contact a practitioner with expertise in management of acute/critical illness. Despite some evidence these tools improve patient outcomes, their translation into clinical practice is inconsistent internationally. To drive greater guideline adherence in the use of the National Early Warning Score tool (a track-and-trigger tool used widely in the United Kingdom and parts of Europe), a theoretically informed implementation intervention was developed (targeting nursing staff) using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) version 2 and a taxonomy of Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs). METHODS: A three-stage process was followed: 1. TDF domains representing important barriers and enablers to target behaviours derived from earlier published empirical work were mapped to appropriate BCTs; 2. BCTs were shortlisted using consensus approaches within the research team; 3. shortlisted BCTs were presented to relevant stakeholders in two online group discussions where nominal group techniques were applied. Nominal group participants were healthcare leaders, senior clinicians, and ward-based nursing staff. Stakeholders individually generated concrete strategies for operationalising shortlisted BCTs ('applications') and privately ranked them according to acceptability and feasibility. Ranking data were used to drive decision-making about intervention content. RESULTS: Fifty BCTs (mapped in stage 1) were shortlisted to 14 (stage 2) and presented to stakeholders in nominal groups (stage 3) alongside example applications. Informed by ranking data from nominal groups, the intervention was populated with 12 BCTs that will be delivered face-to-face, to individuals and groups of nursing staff, through 18 applications. CONCLUSIONS: A description of a theory-based behaviour change intervention is reported, populated with BCTs and applications generated and/or prioritised by stakeholders using replicable consensus methods. The feasibility of the proposed intervention should be tested in a clinical setting and the content of the intervention elaborated further to permit replication and evaluation.

Barriers and enablers of recognition and response to deteriorating patients in the acute hospital setting: A theory-driven interview study using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

AIM: To explore barriers and enablers of recognition and response to signs of patient deterioration by nursing staff in an acute hospital. DESIGN: A theory-driven interview study underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. METHODS: Between 07/01/2019 and 18/12/2019 a purposive sample of registered nurses and healthcare assistants was recruited to participate in a semi-structured (audio-recorded) interview, to explore the determinants of seven specified behaviours of the afferent limb. Anonymised transcripts were deductively coded (using the 14 Theoretical Domains Framework domains as coding categories) and then extracts within each domain were inductively analysed to synthesise belief statements and themes. Prioritisation criteria from published literature were applied. RESULTS: Thirty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted. From 1,888 quotes, 184 belief statements and 66 themes were synthesised. One hundred and forty-six belief statements, represented by 58 themes, met prioritisation criteria. Nine domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework were of high importance: Knowledge; Social, Professional Role and Identity; Beliefs about Consequences; Reinforcement; Intentions; Goals; Memory, Attention and Decision Processes; Environment, Context and Resources and Social Influences. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers and enablers most likely to impact on nursing staff afferent limb behaviour were identified in nine domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Patterns of behaviour in nursing staff actioning the afferent limb of the rapid response system (RRS): A focused ethnography.

AIM: To improve understanding of afferent limb behaviour in acute hospital ward settings, to define and specify who needs to do what differently and to report what afferent limb behaviours should be targeted in a subsequent multi-phase, theory-based, intervention development process. DESIGN: Focused ethnography was used including direct observation of nursing staff enacting afferent limb behaviours and review of vital signs charts. METHODS: An observation guide focused observation on "key moments" of the afferent limb. Descriptions of observations from between 7 January 2019-18 December 2019 were recorded in a field journal alongside reflexive notes. Vital signs and early warning scores from charts were reviewed and recorded. Field notes were analysed using structured content analysis. Observed behaviour was compared with expected (policy-specified) behaviour. RESULTS: Observation was conducted for 300 hr. Four hundred and ninety-nine items of data (e.g., an episode of observation or a set of vital signs) were collected. Two hundred and eighty-nine (58%) items of data were associated with expected (i.e. policy-specified) afferent limb behaviour; 210 (42%) items of data were associated with unexpected afferent limb behaviour (i.e. alternative behaviour or no behaviour). Ten specific behaviours were identified where the behaviour observed deviated (negatively) from policy or where no action was taken when it should have been. One further behaviour was seen to expedite the assessment of a deteriorating patient by an appropriate responder and was therefore considered a positive deviance. CONCLUSION: Afferent limb failure has been described as a problem of inconsistent staff behaviour. Eleven potential target behaviours for change are reported and specified using a published framework. IMPACT: Clear specification of target behaviour will allow further enquiry into the determinants of these behaviours and the development of a theory-based intervention that is more likely to result in behaviour change and can be tested empirically in future research.

Quality metrics for the evaluation of Rapid Response Systems: Proceedings from the third international consensus conference on Rapid Response Systems.

BACKGROUND: Clinically significant deterioration of patients admitted to general wards is a recognized complication of hospital care. Rapid Response Systems (RRS) aim to reduce the number of avoidable adverse events. The authors aimed to develop a core quality metric for the evaluation of RRS. METHODS: We conducted an international consensus process. Participants included patients, carers, clinicians, research scientists, and members of the International Society for Rapid Response Systems with representatives from Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia and the US. Scoping reviews of the literature identified potential metrics. We used a modified Delphi methodology to arrive at a list of candidate indicators that were reviewed for feasibility and applicability across a broad range of healthcare systems including low and middle-income countries. The writing group refined recommendations and further characterized measurement tools. RESULTS: Consensus emerged that core outcomes for reporting for quality improvement should include ten metrics related to structure, process and outcome for RRS with outcomes following the domains of the quadruple aim. The conference recommended that hospitals should collect data on cardiac arrests and their potential predictability, timeliness of escalation, critical care interventions and presence of written treatment goals for patients remaining on general wards. Unit level reporting should include the presence of patient activated rapid response and metrics of organizational culture. We suggest two exploratory cost metrics to underpin urgently needed research in this area. CONCLUSION: A consensus process was used to develop ten metrics for better understanding the course and care of deteriorating ward patients. Others are proposed for further development.

Rapid response systems supporting end of life care: time for a new approach.

Rapid response systems have been implemented worldwide to support management of deteriorating patients outwith critical care units, and are increasingly required to support end of life care. These challenges require a new approach to supporting staff involved in do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions.

Objective patient-related outcomes of rapid-response systems - a pilot study to demonstrate feasibility in two hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To establish and test the feasibility of measurement of a comprehensive set of mutually exclusive outcomes in the 7 days after referral of patients to a rapid-response team (RRT), to facilitate audit and aid analysis of failure-to-rescue events. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of RRTs in a district general hospital and a university hospital in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Patients seen by two RRTs after local track-and-trigger systems were triggered. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: An agreed set of patient-centred outcomes tested at Days 1, 3 and 7 after RRT call-out. Positive outcomes were defined as transfer to a critical care unit (CCU) within 4 hours of the trigger event, improved track-and-trigger scores, death without attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, decision about treatment limitation, new pathology, chronic pathology or hospital discharge. Negative outcomes were delayed transfer to a CCU, lack of improvement in track-and-trigger scores, death after cardiopulmonary arrest, or loss to follow-up. RESULTS: In the initial pilot study, 75% of patients achieved positive outcomes on Day 1 after RRT call-out, and there were no significant changes to outcomes on Days 3 and 7. A higher rate of negative outcomes was seen in patients who triggered an RRT call-out at night. There was significant variation in outcomes between clinical specialties. In neither of the centres were events reported that could not be classified using our matrix of outcomes. CONCLUSION: It is possible to classify RRT episodes using readily available data, and areas with suboptimal performance can be targeted. Our matrix may additionally facilitate comparison of rapid-response systems.