What stops hospital clinical staff from following protocols? An analysis of the incidence and factors behind the failure of bedside clinical staff to activate the rapid response system in a multi-campus Australian metropolitan healthcare service.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the causes of failure to activate the rapid response system (RRS). The organisation has a recognised incidence of staff failing to act when confronted with a deteriorating patient and leading to adverse outcomes. DESIGN: A multi-method study using the following: a point prevalence survey to determine the incidence of abnormal simple bedside observations and activation of the rapid response team by clinical staff; a prospective audit of all patients experiencing a cardiac arrest, unplanned intensive care unit admission or death over an 8-week period; structured interviews of staff to explore cognitive and sociocultural barriers to activating the RRS. SETTING: Southern Health is a comprehensive healthcare network with 570 adult in-patient beds across four metropolitan teaching hospitals in the south-eastern sector of Melbourne. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of physiological instability and outcomes within the in-patient hospital population. Qualitative data from staff interviews were thematically coded. RESULTS: The incidence of physiological instability in the acute adult population was 4.04%. Nearly half of these patients (42%) did not receive an appropriate clinical response from the staff, despite most (69.2%) recognising their patient met physiological criteria for activating the RRS, and being 'quite', or 'very' concerned about their patient (75.8%). Structured interviews with 91 staff members identified predominantly sociocultural reasons for failure to activate the RRS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an organisational commitment to the RRS, clinical staff act on local cultural rules within the clinical environment that are usually not explicit. Better understanding of these informal rules may lead to more appropriate activation of the RRS.

Preadmission processes may improve length of stay for colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The preadmission process (PAP) is known to reduce length of stay prior to surgery, but there are few data on its effects on postoperative stay. The aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that a PAP may reduce postoperative length of stay as well as the preoperative length of stay. METHODS: An audit of admission and discharge times for patients having major colorectal surgery was undertaken to determine the impact of the preadmission process at Dandenong Hospital. One hundred and two elective patients were identified over a 12-month period. RESULTS: The 71 patients admitted through the preadmission process had a 10.7-day average length of stay compared to 18.4 days if the patients were admitted directly by the surgeon. The reduction in length of stay was contributed to by 4 days less preoperatively and 4 days less postoperatively. Thus the benefits from a preadmission service can be realized both at admission and discharge. The nature of this impact of preadmission requires further investigation. CONCLUSIONS: The PAP will reduce preoperative length of stay. Utilization of a PAP also appears to reduce postoperative length of stay and may reduce postoperative complications. Further investigation is required to determine the exact nature and extent of these PAP benefits.