Listen to me, I really am sick! Patient and family narratives of clinical deterioration before and during rapid response system intervention.

AIM: To explore patient and family narratives about their recognition and response to clinical deterioration and their interactions with clinicians prior to and during Medical Emergency Team (MET) activations in hospital. BACKGROUND: Research on clinical deterioration has mostly focused on clinicians' roles. Although patients and families can identify subtle cues of early deterioration, little research has focused on their experience of recognising, speaking up and communicating with clinicians during this period of instability. DESIGN: A narrative inquiry. METHODS: Using narrative interviewing techniques, 33 adult patients and 14 family members of patients, who had received a MET call, in one private and one public academic teaching hospital in Melbourne, Australia were interviewed. Narrative analysis was conducted on the data. RESULTS: The core story of help seeking for recognition and response by clinicians to patient deterioration yielded four subplots: (1) identifying deterioration, recognition that something was not right and different from earlier; (2) voicing concerns to their nurse or by family members on their behalf; (3) being heard, desiring a response acknowledging the legitimacy of their concerns; and (4) once concerns were expressed, there was an expectation of and trust in clinicians to act on the concerns and manage the situation. CONCLUSION: Clinical deterioration results in an additional burden for hospitalised patients and families to speak up, seek help and resolve their concerns. Educating patients and families on what to be concerned about and when to notify staff requires a close partnership with clinicians. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Clinicians must create an environment that enables patients and families to speak up. They must be alert to both subjective and objective information, to acknowledge and to act on the information accordingly. REPORTING METHOD: The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines were used for reporting. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The consumer researcher was involved in design, data analysis and publication preparation.

Patient perceptions of deterioration and patient and family activated escalation systems-A qualitative study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the experiences of patients who received a medical emergency team review following a period of clinical deterioration and their views about the potential use of a patient and family activated escalation system. BACKGROUND: Delay or failure by health professionals to respond to clinical deterioration remains a patient safety concern. Patients may sometimes identify subtle cues of early deterioration prior to changes in vital signs. In response to health professional and system failures, patient and family activated escalation systems have been mandated and implemented in Australia. However, little research has evaluated their effectiveness nor taken patients' perspectives into account. DESIGN: Qualitative exploratory descriptive design was used. METHODS: Purposive sampling was used. Semistructured interviews were undertaken in 2014 with 33 patients who required medical emergency team intervention. Data were collected from one private and one public hospital in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. The framework method was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: All patients stated that it was the clinician who detected and responded to deterioration. Private patient participants were unaware of the medical emergency team system, and felt escalating care was not their responsibility. These patients reported being too sick to communicate prior to and during medical emergency team review and did not favour a patient and family activated escalation system. Public patients were well informed about the medical emergency team system yet expressed concerns around overriding clinicians if activating a patient and family activated escalation system. CONCLUSION: Patient participation during a period of deterioration is restricted by their clinical condition and limited medical knowledge. Patients felt comfortable to communicate concerns to clinicians but felt they would not activate the patient and family activated escalation system. This behoves clinicians to actively listen and respond to patient concerns. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Clinicians must promote a collaborative relationship and encourage patients to communicate their concerns. Given the perceived barriers to patient and family activated escalation systems use, resources being employed for their implementation could be redistributed to other areas of patient safety.

Patients' perceptions of participation in nursing care on medical wards.

BACKGROUND: Patient participation benefits the patient and is a core concept of patient-centred care. Patients believe in their ability to prevent errors; thus, they may play a vital role in combating adverse event rates in hospitals. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore hospitalised medical patients' perceptions of participating in nursing care, including the barriers and facilitators for this activity. RESEARCH METHODS: This interpretive study was conducted on four medical wards, in two hospitals. Purposeful maximum variation sampling was operationalised to recruit patients that differed in areas such as age, gender and mobility status. In-depth semi-structured audiotaped interviews were undertaken and analysed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Twenty patients participated in the study. Four categories were uncovered in the data. First, valuing participation showed patients' willingness to participate, viewing it as a worthwhile task. Second, exchanging intelligence was a way of participating where patients' knowledge was built and shared with health professionals. Third, on the lookout was a type of participation where patients monitored their care, showing an attentive approach towards their own safety. Fourth, power imbalance was characterised by patients feeling their opportunities for participation were restricted. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were motivated to participate and valued participation. Cultivating this motivation may be crucial to patient empowerment and practices of safety monitoring, a fundamental strategy to addressing patient safety issues in hospitals. Engaging nurse-patient relationships, inclusive of knowledge sharing, is required in practice to empower patients to participate. Educating patients on the consequences of non-participation may motivate them, while nurses may benefit from training on patient-centred approaches. Future research should address ways to increase patient motivation and opportunities to participate.

Nurses' views of patient participation in nursing care.

AIMS: To explore nurses' views of patient participation in nursing care on medical wards. BACKGROUND: Nurses have frequent contact with patients, highlighting their potential role in enabling patient participation. However, some nurses' actions and attitudes act as barriers, failing to achieve core requirements of patient participation. Discovering nurses' views may assist in developing strategies to encourage patient participation in hospitals. DESIGN: Interpretive study. METHODS: Twenty nurses were recruited from four medical wards, located in two Australian hospitals. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2013-March 2014 and analysed using content analysis. FINDINGS: Five categories emerged from the nurses' views. The first category, acknowledging patients as partners, showed nurses respected patients as legitimate participants. In the second category, managing risk, nurses emphasized the need to monitor participation to ensure rules and patient safety were maintained. Enabling participation was the third category, which demonstrated nurses' strategies that enhanced patients' participation. The fourth category was hindering participation; encapsulating nurses' difficulty in engaging patients with certain characteristics. In the final category, realizing participation, nurses believed patients could be involved in physical activities or clinical communication. CONCLUSION: Nurses have a crucial role in promoting patient participation. Through acknowledging and enabling participation, nurses may facilitate patient participation in a range of nursing activities. The nurse's role in enacting participation is complex, having to accommodate each patient's risks and characteristics, highlighting the need for good assessment skills. Education, policy and research strategies are essential to foster nurses' pivotal role in patient participation.

Missed medical emergency team activations: tracking decisions and outcomes in practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite extensive work to improve early recognition of and response to abnormal vital signs, a failure or delay in response to clinical deterioration by activating a medical emergency team (MET) can affect patient safety. OBJECTIVES: To determine incidence, management and outcomes of patients having vital signs fulfilling MET call criteria during their entire admission, and to compare baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients who fulfilled MET call criteria with patients who did not. DESIGN: A retrospective chart audit was conducted in a private Melbourne hospital. All patients hospitalised for ≥ 24 hours in general wards and discharged in the 7-day study period were included. Medical records were reviewed for all patients who fulfilled MET criteria to assess escalation of care. RESULTS: Of the sample (N = 568), 82 patients (14%) had one or more documented vital signs fulfilling MET criteria. Hospital length of stay (LOS) for these patients was twice that of those who did not (8.6 days versus 4.3 days; P < 0.001). Medical patients were more likely to meet MET criteria than surgical patients (P = 0.03), and there were no significant differences for sex or between elective and emergency admissions. In the 79 patients not reviewed by the MET, the primary nurse escalated care for 36 patients (46%). Nurses independently initiated treatment for 23 of these patients (64%) and when unable to, they referred the patient for medical review (36%). Presence of MET criteria had resolved within 1 hour for 37 patients (45%) who fulfilled criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Despite one in seven patients fulfilling MET criteria, MET activation occurred infrequently. The presence of MET criteria was associated with a doubling of the hospital LOS. Escalation of care in response to detection of MET criteria fulfillment was variable. Further research tracking patient management is needed to understand the decision-making process that occurs in the presence of clinical deterioration.