Dataset Information

Factors influencing the activation of the rapid response system for clinically deteriorating patients by frontline ward clinicians: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To synthesize factors influencing the activation of the rapid response system (RRS) and reasons for suboptimal RRS activation by ward nurses and junior physicians.

Data sources

Nine electronic databases were searched for articles published between January 1995 and January 2016 in addition to a hand-search of reference lists and relevant journals.

Study selection

Published primary studies conducted in adult general ward settings and involved the experiences and views of ward nurses and/or junior physicians in RRS activation were included.

Data extraction

Data on design, methods and key findings were extracted and collated.

Results of data synthesis

Thirty studies were included for the review. The process to RRS activation was influenced by the perceptions and clinical experiences of ward nurses and physicians, and facilitated by tools and technologies, including the sensitivity and specificity of the activation criteria, and monitoring technology. However, the task of enacting the RRS activations was challenged by seeking further justification, deliberating over reactions from the rapid response team and the impact of workload and staffing. Finally, adherence to the traditional model of escalation of care, support from colleagues and hospital leaders, and staff training were organizational factors that influence RRS activation.

Conclusion

This review suggests that the factors influencing RRS activation originated from a combination of socio-cultural, organizational and technical aspects. Institutions that strive for improvements in the existing RRS or are considering to adopt the RRS should consider the complex interactions between people and the elements of technologies, tasks, environment and organization in healthcare settings.

SUBMITTER: Chua WL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6216047 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors influencing the activation of the rapid response system for clinically deteriorating patients by frontline ward clinicians: a systematic review.

Chua Wei Ling WL See Min Ting Alicia MTA Legio-Quigley Helena H Jones Daryl D Tee Augustine A Liaw Sok Ying SY

International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care 20171201 8

<h4>Purpose</h4>To synthesize factors influencing the activation of the rapid response system (RRS) and reasons for suboptimal RRS activation by ward nurses and junior physicians.<h4>Data sources</h4>Nine electronic databases were searched for articles published between January 1995 and January 2016 in addition to a hand-search of reference lists and relevant journals.<h4>Study selection</h4>Published primary studies conducted in adult general ward settings and involved the experiences and views ...[more]

PMID: 29177454

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGiven the opportunities created by artificial intelligence (AI) based decision support systems in healthcare, the vital question is whether clinicians are willing to use this technology as an integral part of clinical workflow.PurposeThis study leverages validated questions to formulate an online survey and consequently explore cognitive human factors influencing clinicians' intention to use an AI-based Blood Utilization Calculator (BUC), an AI system embedded in the electronic health record that delivers data-driven personalized recommendations for the number of packed red blood cells to transfuse for a given patient.MethodA purposeful sampling strategy was used to exclusively include BUC users who are clinicians in a university hospital in Wisconsin. We recruited 119 BUC users who completed the entire survey. We leveraged structural equation modeling to capture the direct and indirect effects of "AI Perception" and "Expectancy" on clinicians' Intention to use the technology when mediated by "Perceived Risk".ResultsThe findings indicate a significant negative relationship concerning the direct impact of AI's perception on BUC Risk (ß = -0.23, p < 0.001). Similarly, Expectancy had a significant negative effect on Risk (ß = -0.49, p < 0.001). We also noted a significant negative impact of Risk on the Intent to use BUC (ß = -0.34, p < 0.001). Regarding the indirect effect of Expectancy on the Intent to Use BUC, the findings show a significant positive impact mediated by Risk (ß = 0.17, p = 0.004). The study noted a significant positive and indirect effect of AI Perception on the Intent to Use BUC when mediated by risk (ß = 0.08, p = 0.027). Overall, this study demonstrated the influences of expectancy, perceived risk, and perception of AI on clinicians' intent to use BUC (an AI system). AI developers need to emphasize the benefits of AI technology, ensure ease of use (effort expectancy), clarify the system's potential (performance expectancy), and minimize the risk perceptions by improving the overall design.ConclusionIdentifying the factors that determine clinicians' intent to use AI-based decision support systems can help improve technology adoption and use in the healthcare domain. Enhanced and safe adoption of AI can uplift the overall care process and help standardize clinical decisions and procedures. An improved AI adoption in healthcare will help clinicians share their everyday clinical workload and make critical decisions.

Project description:Background Telemedicine expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, as key policy changes, financial support, and pandemic fears tipped the balance toward internet-based care. Despite this increased support and benefits to patients and clinicians, telemedicine uptake was variable across clinicians and practices. Little is known regarding physician and institutional characteristics underlying this variability.Objective This study aimed to evaluate factors influencing telemedicine uptake among frontline physicians in the early pandemic response.Methods We surveyed a national stratified sample of frontline clinicians drawn from the American Medical Association Physician Professional Data in June or July 2020. The survey inquired about the first month and most recent month (June 2020) of pandemic telemedicine use; sample data included clinician gender, specialty, census region, and years in practice. Local pandemic conditions were estimated from county-level data on COVID-19 rates at the time of survey response. Data were analyzed in a weighted logistic regression, controlling for county-specific pandemic data, and weighted to account for survey data stratification and nonresponse.Results Over the first 3-4 months of the pandemic, the proportion of physicians reporting use of telemedicine in >30% of visits increased from 29.2% (70/239) to 35.7% (85/238). Relative to primary care, odds of substantial telemedicine use (>30%) both during the first month of the pandemic and in June 2020 were increased among infectious disease and critical care physicians and decreased among hospitalists and emergency medicine physicians. At least minimal prepandemic telemedicine use (odds ratio [OR] 11.41, 95% CI 1.34-97.04) and a high 2-week moving average of local COVID-19 cases (OR 10.16, 95% CI 2.07-49.97) were also associated with substantial telemedicine use in June 2020. There were no significant differences according to clinician gender, census region, or years in practice.Conclusions Prepandemic telemedicine use, high local COVID-19 case counts, and clinician specialty were associated with higher levels of substantial telemedicine use during the early pandemic response. These results suggest that telemedicine uptake in the face of the pandemic may have been heavily influenced by the level of perceived threat and the resources available for implementation. Such understanding has important implications for reducing burnout and preparation for future public health emergencies.

Project description:Clinicians' perspectives of the reasons for performing caesarean section (CS) are fundamental to deepening knowledge and understanding of factors influencing decision-making for CS. The aim of this study was to explore midwives' and obstetricians' views of factors influencing decision-making for CS for first-time mothers. A qualitative descriptive study with semi-structured one-to-one audio-recorded interviews was used to gather data from clinicians (15 midwives and 20 senior obstetricians). Following research ethics committee approval, clinicians, who were directly involved in the decision-making process for CS during the period of data collection, were purposively selected from three maternity units in the Republic of Ireland between June 2016 to July 2017. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Three interrelated themes with several subthemes reflective of clinicians' views and experiences emerged following data analysis. These were: 'A fear factor' describing clinicians' fear of adverse outcomes and subsequent litigation, 'Personal preferences versus a threshold-clinician driven factors emphasising the influence of clinicians' personal beliefs, and 'Standardised versus individualised care-a system perspective' explaining the effects of, or lack of, organisational policy and its direct and indirect impact on the decision-making process. Findings show that decisions to perform a CS are, on occasion, based on clinicians' personal beliefs and interpretation, similar to findings from other published literature. Consideration of broader issues related to organisational, socio-cultural and political context is essential when seeking solutions to the rising CS rates. The findings will enable clinicians to reflect on their day-to-day practice, in order to look for modifiable factors that influence their decision-making, and help women understand the multitude of factors that can lead to a decision to perform a CS. Findings will also contribute to the development of the 'next step action' and assist in devising future intervention studies to reduce any unnecessary CSs.

Project description:ImportanceIt is unknown which deteriorating ward patients benefit from intensive care unit (ICU) transfer.ObjectivesTo use an instrumental variable (IV) method that assesses heterogeneity and to evaluate estimates of person-centered treatment effects of ICU transfer and 28-day hospital mortality by age and illness severity.Design, setting, and participantsAn analysis of a prospective cohort study from November 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. The dates of this analysis were June 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018. The setting was a multicenter study of 49 UK National Health Service hospitals. Participants were 9192 deteriorating ward patients assessed for ICU transfer (4596 matched pairs). The study matched on baseline characteristics to strengthen the IV and to balance observed confounders between the comparison groups.ExposuresTransfer to the ICU or continued care on general wards.Main outcomes and measuresMortality at 28 days (primary outcome) and 90 days. To address unobserved confounding, ICU bed availability was the IV for whether or not a patient was transferred. The study used the IV approach to evaluate estimates of treatment effect of ICU transfer and mortality according to age and physiological severity alone and in combination.ResultsBoth comparison groups included 4596 patients. In the group assessed with "many" ICU beds available (median, 7), 52.8% were male, and the mean (SD) age was 65.2 (17.7) years; in the group assessed with "few" ICU beds available (median, 2), 53.3% were male, and the mean (SD) age was 65.0 (17.3) years. The overall 28-day mortality estimates were 23.2% (2090 predicted deaths) if all of the matched patients were transferred vs 28.1% (2534 predicted deaths) if none of the matched patients were transferred, an estimated risk difference of -4.9% (95% CI, -26.4% to 16.6%). The estimated effects of ICU transfer differed by age and by physiological severity according to the National Early Warning Score (NEWS): the absolute risk differences in 28-day mortality after ICU transfer ranged from 7.7% (95% CI, -5.5% to 21.0%) for ages 18 to 23 years to -5.0% (95% CI -26.5% to 16.6%) for age 78 to 83 years and ranged from 3.7% (95% CI, -12.1% to 19.5%) for NEWS of 0 to -25.4% (95% CI, -50.6% to -0.2%) for NEWS of 19. The absolute risk differences for elderly patients (≥75 years) were -11.6% (95% CI, -39.0% to 15.8%) for those with high NEWS (>6), -4.8% (95% CI, -30.5% to 20.9%) for those with moderate NEWS (5-6), and -1.0% (95% CI, -24.8% to 22.8%) for those with low NEWS (<5). The corresponding estimates for subgroups of younger patients (<75 years) were -8.4% (95% CI, -31.0% to 14.1%), -2.1% (95% CI, -21.1% to 16.9%), and 1.4% (95% CI, -14.5% to 17.4%).Conclusions and relevanceThis study using a this person-centered IV approach found that the benefits of ICU care may increase among patients at high levels of baseline physiological severity across different age groups, especially among elderly patients.

Dataset Information

Factors influencing the activation of the rapid response system for clinically deteriorating patients by frontline ward clinicians: a systematic review.

Purpose

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction

Results of data synthesis

Conclusion

Publications

Factors influencing the activation of the rapid response system for clinically deteriorating patients by frontline ward clinicians: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets