Cargando…

A qualitative exploration of escalation of care in the acute ward setting

BACKGROUND: “Failure to Rescue” includes failing to prevent avoidable patient deterioration and death. Despite its use, delays in care escalation still affect patient outcomes. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative service evaluation was to map the barriers and facilitators to the escalati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ede, Jody, Jeffs, Emma, Vollam, Sarah, Watkinson, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7217245/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31833178
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12479
_version_ 1783532579235823616
author Ede, Jody
Jeffs, Emma
Vollam, Sarah
Watkinson, Peter
author_facet Ede, Jody
Jeffs, Emma
Vollam, Sarah
Watkinson, Peter
author_sort Ede, Jody
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: “Failure to Rescue” includes failing to prevent avoidable patient deterioration and death. Despite its use, delays in care escalation still affect patient outcomes. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative service evaluation was to map the barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care in the acute ward setting and identify those that are modifiable. DESIGN: A total of 55 hours of qualitative observations were completed to capture care escalation events. These were conducted at two hospital sites in one National Health Service trust. METHODS: Observations were iterative, with research team meetings being used to discuss the data and future methods. Field notes were analysed thematically by two researchers, extracting data on barriers and facilitators to escalation of care. RESULTS: Clinical nursing staff challenged the sensitivity and specificity of Early Warning Scores, describing tool failings in certain clinical scenarios. Staff did not escalate based on the alerting Early Warning Scores alone but used other clinical factors, such as bleeding, which are not necessarily captured in the scoring systems. Staff frequently did not re‐escalate low‐level scores. Patient and non‐patient factors identified as posing barriers to escalation were complex care needs, patient outlier status, and involvement of multiple care teams. Factors negatively affecting the chain of communication during escalation were team tension, staffing levels, and inadequate handover. CONCLUSION: This service evaluation identified barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care in the acute ward setting. Unlike other studies, we found that re‐escalation or tracking of deterioration was problematic. Patients identified as being at a higher risk of escalation failure included complex patients, outliers, and patients with multiple care teams. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This service evaluation demonstrates continuing health care communication barriers. Patient groups (complex patients and outliers) risk process failures during escalation. This can be applied in clinical practice by staff anticipating problems in these patients, documenting clear escalation pathways.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7217245
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72172452020-05-13 A qualitative exploration of escalation of care in the acute ward setting Ede, Jody Jeffs, Emma Vollam, Sarah Watkinson, Peter Nurs Crit Care Quality Improvement BACKGROUND: “Failure to Rescue” includes failing to prevent avoidable patient deterioration and death. Despite its use, delays in care escalation still affect patient outcomes. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative service evaluation was to map the barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care in the acute ward setting and identify those that are modifiable. DESIGN: A total of 55 hours of qualitative observations were completed to capture care escalation events. These were conducted at two hospital sites in one National Health Service trust. METHODS: Observations were iterative, with research team meetings being used to discuss the data and future methods. Field notes were analysed thematically by two researchers, extracting data on barriers and facilitators to escalation of care. RESULTS: Clinical nursing staff challenged the sensitivity and specificity of Early Warning Scores, describing tool failings in certain clinical scenarios. Staff did not escalate based on the alerting Early Warning Scores alone but used other clinical factors, such as bleeding, which are not necessarily captured in the scoring systems. Staff frequently did not re‐escalate low‐level scores. Patient and non‐patient factors identified as posing barriers to escalation were complex care needs, patient outlier status, and involvement of multiple care teams. Factors negatively affecting the chain of communication during escalation were team tension, staffing levels, and inadequate handover. CONCLUSION: This service evaluation identified barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care in the acute ward setting. Unlike other studies, we found that re‐escalation or tracking of deterioration was problematic. Patients identified as being at a higher risk of escalation failure included complex patients, outliers, and patients with multiple care teams. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This service evaluation demonstrates continuing health care communication barriers. Patient groups (complex patients and outliers) risk process failures during escalation. This can be applied in clinical practice by staff anticipating problems in these patients, documenting clear escalation pathways. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2019-12-12 2020-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7217245/ /pubmed/31833178 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12479 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Nursing in Critical Care published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd on behalf of British Association of Critical Care Nurses. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Quality Improvement
Ede, Jody
Jeffs, Emma
Vollam, Sarah
Watkinson, Peter
A qualitative exploration of escalation of care in the acute ward setting
title A qualitative exploration of escalation of care in the acute ward setting
title_full A qualitative exploration of escalation of care in the acute ward setting
title_fullStr A qualitative exploration of escalation of care in the acute ward setting
title_full_unstemmed A qualitative exploration of escalation of care in the acute ward setting
title_short A qualitative exploration of escalation of care in the acute ward setting
title_sort qualitative exploration of escalation of care in the acute ward setting
topic Quality Improvement
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7217245/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31833178
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12479
work_keys_str_mv AT edejody aqualitativeexplorationofescalationofcareintheacutewardsetting
AT jeffsemma aqualitativeexplorationofescalationofcareintheacutewardsetting
AT vollamsarah aqualitativeexplorationofescalationofcareintheacutewardsetting
AT watkinsonpeter aqualitativeexplorationofescalationofcareintheacutewardsetting
AT edejody qualitativeexplorationofescalationofcareintheacutewardsetting
AT jeffsemma qualitativeexplorationofescalationofcareintheacutewardsetting
AT vollamsarah qualitativeexplorationofescalationofcareintheacutewardsetting
AT watkinsonpeter qualitativeexplorationofescalationofcareintheacutewardsetting