Cargando…

Recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make?

BACKGROUND: The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care released a set of national standards which became a mandatory part of accreditation in 2013. Standard 9 focuses on the identification and treatment of deteriorating patients. The objective of the study was to identify changes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Anstey, Matthew H., Bhasale, Alice, Dunbar, Nicola J., Buchan, Heather
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6728974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31488141
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4339-z
_version_ 1783449516316295168
author Anstey, Matthew H.
Bhasale, Alice
Dunbar, Nicola J.
Buchan, Heather
author_facet Anstey, Matthew H.
Bhasale, Alice
Dunbar, Nicola J.
Buchan, Heather
author_sort Anstey, Matthew H.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care released a set of national standards which became a mandatory part of accreditation in 2013. Standard 9 focuses on the identification and treatment of deteriorating patients. The objective of the study was to identify changes in the characteristics and perceptions of rapid response systems (RRS) since the implementation of Standard 9. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of Australian hospitals. Baseline data was obtained from a pre-implementation survey in 2010 (220 hospitals). A follow-up survey was distributed in 2015 to staff involved in implementing Standard 9 in public and private hospitals (276 responses) across Australia. RESULTS: Since 2010, the proportion of hospitals with formal RRS had increased from 66 to 85. Only 7% of sites had dedicated funding to operate the RRS. 83% of respondents reported that Standard 9 had improved the recognition of, and response to, deteriorating patients in their health service, with 51% believing it had improved awareness at the executive level and 50% believing it had changed hospital culture. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a national safety and quality standard for deteriorating patients can change processes to deliver safer care, while raising the profile of safety issues. Despite limited dedicated funding and staffing, respondents reported that Standard 9 had a positive impact on the care for deteriorating patients in their hospitals. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4339-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6728974
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67289742019-09-12 Recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make? Anstey, Matthew H. Bhasale, Alice Dunbar, Nicola J. Buchan, Heather BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care released a set of national standards which became a mandatory part of accreditation in 2013. Standard 9 focuses on the identification and treatment of deteriorating patients. The objective of the study was to identify changes in the characteristics and perceptions of rapid response systems (RRS) since the implementation of Standard 9. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of Australian hospitals. Baseline data was obtained from a pre-implementation survey in 2010 (220 hospitals). A follow-up survey was distributed in 2015 to staff involved in implementing Standard 9 in public and private hospitals (276 responses) across Australia. RESULTS: Since 2010, the proportion of hospitals with formal RRS had increased from 66 to 85. Only 7% of sites had dedicated funding to operate the RRS. 83% of respondents reported that Standard 9 had improved the recognition of, and response to, deteriorating patients in their health service, with 51% believing it had improved awareness at the executive level and 50% believing it had changed hospital culture. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a national safety and quality standard for deteriorating patients can change processes to deliver safer care, while raising the profile of safety issues. Despite limited dedicated funding and staffing, respondents reported that Standard 9 had a positive impact on the care for deteriorating patients in their hospitals. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4339-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6728974/ /pubmed/31488141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4339-z Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Anstey, Matthew H.
Bhasale, Alice
Dunbar, Nicola J.
Buchan, Heather
Recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make?
title Recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make?
title_full Recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make?
title_fullStr Recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make?
title_full_unstemmed Recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make?
title_short Recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make?
title_sort recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6728974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31488141
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4339-z
work_keys_str_mv AT ansteymatthewh recognisingandrespondingtodeterioratingpatientswhatdifferencedonationalstandardsmake
AT bhasalealice recognisingandrespondingtodeterioratingpatientswhatdifferencedonationalstandardsmake
AT dunbarnicolaj recognisingandrespondingtodeterioratingpatientswhatdifferencedonationalstandardsmake
AT buchanheather recognisingandrespondingtodeterioratingpatientswhatdifferencedonationalstandardsmake