Consumers' perspectives on their involvement in recognizing and responding to patient deterioration-Developing a model for consumer reporting

Understanding the enablers and barriers to implementing a patient-led escalation system: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The management of acute deterioration following surgery remains highly variable. Patients and families can play an important role in identifying early signs of deterioration but effective contribution to escalation of care can be practically difficult to achieve. This paper reports the enablers and barriers to the implementation of patient-led escalation systems found during a process evaluation of a quality improvement programme Rescue for Emergency Surgery Patients Observed to uNdergo acute Deterioration (RESPOND).

METHODS

The research used ethnographic methods, including over 100 hours of observations on surgical units in three English hospitals in order to understand the everyday context of care. Observations focused on the coordination of activities such as handovers and how rescue featured as part of this. We also conducted 27 interviews with a range of clinical and managerial staff and patients. We employed a thematic analysis approach, combined with a theoretically focused implementation coding framework, based on Normalisation Process Theory.

RESULTS

We found that organisational infrastructural support in the form of a leadership support and clinical care outreach teams with capacity were enablers in implementing the patient-led escalation system. Barriers to implementation included making changes to professional practice without discussing the value and legitimacy of operationalising patient concerns, and ensuring equity of use. We found that organisational work is needed to overcome patient fears about disrupting social and cultural norms.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper reveals the need for infrastructural support to facilitate the implementation of a patient-led escalation system, and leadership support to normalise the everyday process of involving patients and families in escalation. This type of system may not achieve its goals without properly understanding and addressing the concerns of both nurses and patients.

Opinions of Nurses and Physicians on a Patient, Family, and Visitor Activated Rapid Response System in Use Across Two Hospital Settings

BACKGROUND

Early detection of deterioration of hospitalized patients with timely intervention improves outcomes in the hospital. Patients, family members, and visitors (consumers) at the patient's bedside who are familiar with the patient's condition may play a critical role in detecting early patient deterioration. The authors sought to understand clinicians' views on consumer reporting of patient deterioration through an established hospital consumer-initiated escalation-of-care system.

METHODS

A convenience sample of new graduate-level to senior-level nurses and physicians from two hospitals in South Australia was administered a paper survey containing six open-ended questions. Data were analyzed with a matrix-style framework and six steps of thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 244 clinicians-198 nurses and 46 physicians-provided their views on the consumer-initiated escalation-of-care system. Six major themes and subthemes emerged from the responses indicating that (1) clinicians were supportive of consumer reporting and felt that consumers were ideally positioned to recognize deterioration early and raise concerns about it; (2) management support was required for consumer escalation processes to be effective; (3) clinicians' workload could possibly increase or decrease from consumer escalation; (4) education of consumers and staff on escalation protocol is a requirement for success; (5) there is need to build consumer confidence to speak up; and (6) there is a need to address barriers to consumer escalation.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians were supportive of consumers acting as first reporters of patient deterioration. Use of interactive, encouraging communication skills with consumers was recognized as critical. Annual updating of clinicians on consumer reporting of deterioration was also recommended.

Hospital Testing of the Effectiveness of Co-Designed Educational Materials to Improve Patient and Visitor Knowledge and Confidence in Reporting Patient Deterioration

BACKGROUND

Co-designed educational materials could significantly improve the likelihood of patients and visitors (consumers) escalating care through hospital systems. The objective was to investigate patients' and visitors' knowledge and confidence in recognizing and reporting patient deterioration in hospitals before and after exposure to educational materials.

METHODS

A multimethod design involved a convenience sample of patients and visitors at a South Australian hospital. Knowledge and confidence of participants to report patient deterioration was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Baseline group was surveyed, and a second group was surveyed after exposure to a poster and on-hold message relating to consumer-initiated escalation-of-care. Nominal data were examined using chi-square analysis, and ordinal data using the Mann-Whitney U test. Open-ended questions were examined using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 407 participants completed the study, 203 undertook the baseline survey, and 204 the postintervention survey. Respondents exposed to the educational materials reported significantly higher recognition of responsibility to report concerns about patient deterioration compared to controls (86.3% vs. 73.1%; p = 0.007). Respondents exposed to the educational materials also had better ability to identify signs that a patient was becoming sicker compared to controls (77.5% vs. 71.3%, p = 0.012). Four overarching themes emerged from the questions: patient/visitor understanding of key messages, patient/visitor recognition of deterioration, patient/visitor response to deterioration and patient/visitor recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Following educational interventions, patients and visitors report improved awareness of their role in recognizing and responding to clinical deterioration. They advise additional active interventions and caution that the materials should accommodate language, cultural, and disability needs.

Acute clinical deterioration and consumer escalation: The understanding and perceptions of hospital staff

Introduction

Consumer escalation systems allow patients and families to escalate concerns about acute clinical deterioration. Hospital staff can impact upon the success of this process. As part of evaluation processes within a Local Health Network, where a consumer escalation system was introduced in accordance with National requirements, we sought to explore clinicians’ understanding and perceptions of consumer escalation.

Methods

Voluntary and anonymous staff surveys pre, and post, system introduction. Quantitative data was analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square independence, and non-parametric independent samples median tests. Qualitative data was evaluated using content analysis and cross-referenced with quantitative responses.

Results

Respondent’s (pre: 215; post: 89) area of work varied significantly between survey periods. Most agreed that patients/families have a sound knowledge of a patient’s typical health status (pre: 192/215 (89.3%); post 82/88 (93.2%)) and that patients/families should be encouraged to escalate concerns of deterioration to ward staff (pre: 209/212 (98.6%); post: 85/89 (95.5%)). Respondent perceptions of patient/family ability to recognise clinical deterioration varied. Staff agreement towards local response expectations decreased as the degree of clinical requirement increased. Staff concerns of increased workloads (pre: 90/214 (42.1%); post 12/72 (16.7%), p<0.001) and conflict generation (pre: 71/213 (33.3%); post: 7/71 (9.9%), p = 0.001) decreased significantly following system introduction. However, clinician perceptions of positive system effects also decreased (patient-staff rapport pre: 163/213 (76.5%); post: 38/72 (52.8%), p = 0.001; patient centred care pre: 188/214 (87.9%); post: 53/72 (73.6%), p = 0.012; patient safety pre: 173/214 (80.8%); post: 49/72 (68.1%), p = 0.077). Only 53% of respondents (pre: 112/213 (52.6%); post: 48/88 (54.5%)) perceived that patient/family have sufficient confidence to escalate concerns.

Conclusion

Consumer escalation systems require staff support. Staff perceptions may indicate, and act as, barriers to the operation of consumer escalation processes. Further exploration in identifying and managing staff barriers is crucial to the success of consumer escalation.

Development and Validation of an Evaluation Tool of Consumers' Knowledge and Confidence to Report Patient Deterioration in Hospitals

OBJECTIVES

Studies have shown that many preventable hospital deaths may be reduced through early reporting of deterioration by patients and their visitors to health professionals. Engagement of patients and families for safer health care was recommended by the World Health Organization. As no validated tool was identified, the objective of the study was to develop and validate a tool to measure the impact of messages contained in self-developed educational materials on consumers' knowledge and confidence to report patient deterioration.

METHODS

A tool was created using consumer-based input. A test-retest methodology was used 2 weeks apart, using 37 participants sourced from consumer groups. Fourteen 5-point Likert scale questionnaire items were categorized into knowledge and confidence components to identify the impact of the materials in both of these areas.

RESULTS

Test-retest reliability confirmed 10 of the 14 proposed questionnaire items (4 knowledge items and 6 confidence) had at least moderate κ agreement ranging from 0.42 to 0.69 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.66. An exploratory factor analysis of the 10 remaining items indicated a 2-factor solution had the best interpretability accounting for 96.9% of variability. The Cronbach α and factor loadings for the factors, knowledge, and confidence suggested an acceptable level of reliability and validity.

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms our tool for assessment of educational materials to be a reliable, context-specific, and validated instrument. The tool is an appropriate instrument to assess the effectiveness of educational materials in public awareness campaigns that focus on consumer reporting of patient deterioration within hospitals.

You're Worried, We're Listening: Online Testing of the Effectiveness of Education Materials to Improve Consumer Knowledge and Confidence in Reporting Patient Deterioration

OBJECTIVES

Early identification of patient deterioration in hospital is important to reduce mortality, avoidable morbidity, length of stay, and associated healthcare costs. By closely observing physical and behavioral changes, deteriorating patients are more likely to be identified. Patients and family at the bedside can play an important role in reporting deterioration if made aware of how to do so. Therefore, the objective of this study was to undertake an online evaluation of educational materials designed to improve consumers' knowledge and confidence to report patient deterioration.

METHODS

A convenience sample was used to recruit community-based participants for an online survey. A self-designed validated instrument was used to undertake a preintervention and postintervention test involving 3 types of educational materials. Quantitative data were analyzed with Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare participants' knowledge and confidence before and after exposure to the intervention. Conventional content analyses examined responses on key messages and recommendations to improve the educational materials.

RESULTS

A total of 84 respondents completed both prequestionnaires and postquestionnaires. After exposure to the education materials, analyses confirmed that knowledge and confidence scores were significantly higher than baseline measures. Content analyses indicated a clear understanding of the key messages presented in the materials. Four main recommendations were made regarding the education materials.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants readily identified the key messages in the educational materials and demonstrated increased knowledge and confidence to report concerns about deterioration. Further research is required to determine the efficacy of the educational materials in relation to consumer behavior.

Human factors in escalating acute ward care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Background

Identifying how human factors affect clinical staff recognition and managment of the deteriorating ward patient may inform process improvements. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify (1) how human factors affect ward care escalation (2) gaps in the current literature and (3) critique literature methodologies.

Methods

We undertook a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of care escalation studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINHAL from inception to September 2019. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment-Development and Evaluation and Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool to assess study quality.

Results

Our search identified 24 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Confidence in findings was moderate (20 studies) to high (4 studies). In 16 studies, the ability to recognise changes in the patient’s condition (soft signals), including skin colour/temperature, respiratory pattern, blood loss, personality change, patient complaint and fatigue, improved the ability to escalate patients. Soft signals were detected through patient assessment (looking/listening/feeling) and not Early Warning Scores (eight studies). In contrast, 13 studies found a high workload and low staffing levels reduced staff’s ability to detect patient deterioration and escalate care. In eight studies quantifiable deterioration evidence (Early Warning Scores) facilitated escalation communication, particularly when referrer/referee were unfamiliar. Conversely, escalating concerning non-triggering patients was challenging but achieved by some clinical staff (three studies). Team decision making facilitated the clinical escalation (six studies).

Conclusions

Early Warning Scores have clinical benefits but can sometimes impede escalation in patients not meeting the threshold. Staff use other factors (soft signals) not captured in Early Warning Scores to escalate care. The literature supports strategies that improve the escalation process such as good patient assessment skills.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42018104745.

Patient and family involvement in escalating concerns about clinical deterioration in acute adult wards: A qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite international standards for recognition and response to deterioration, warning signs are not always identified by staff on acute hospital wards. Patient and family-initiated escalation of care schemes have shown some benefit in assisting early recognition, but are not widely used in many clinical practice areas.

OBJECTIVES

To explore (a) patients' and relatives' experiences of acute deterioration and (b) patients', relatives' and healthcare professionals' perceptions of the barriers or facilitators to patient and family-initiated escalation of care in acute adult hospital wards.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative review using Cochrane methodology. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and appraised the quality using a qualitative critical appraisal tool. Findings were analysed using thematic synthesis and confidence in findings was assessed using GRADE-CERQual.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO databases and grey literature from 2005 to August 2019.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Any research design that had a qualitative element and focused on adult patients' and relatives' experiences of deterioration and perceptions of escalating care.

RESULTS

We included five studies representing 120 participants and assessed the certainty of evidence as moderate using GRADE-CERQual. Findings indicated that a number of patients/relatives have the ability to detect acute deterioration, however, various factors act as both barriers and facilitators to being heard. These include personal factors, perceptions of role, quality of relationships with healthcare staff, and organisational factors. Theoretical understanding suggests that patient and relative involvement in escalation is dependent on both inherent capabilities and the factors that influence empowerment.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights that patient and family escalation of care interventions need to be designed with the aim of improving patient/relative-clinician collaboration and the sharing of responsibility.

RELEVANCE TO PRACTICE

These factors need to be addressed to promote more active partnerships when designing and implementing patient and family-initiated escalation of care interventions.

Interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness in community health and hospital settings

BACKGROUND

There is now a rising commitment to acknowledge the role patients and families play in contributing to their safety. This review focuses on one type of involvement in safety - patient and family involvement in escalation of care for serious life-threatening conditions i.e. helping secure a step-up to urgent or emergency care - which has been receiving increasing policy and practice attention. This review was concerned with the negotiation work that patient and family members undertake across the emergency care escalation pathway, once contact has been made with healthcare staff. It includes interventions aiming to improve detection of symptoms, communication of concerns and staff response to these concerns.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness on patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP) ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from 1 Jan 2000 to 24 August 2018. The search was updated on 21 October 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials where the intervention focused on patients and families working with healthcare professionals to ensure care received for acute deterioration was timely and appropriate. A key criterion was to include an interactive element of rehearsal, role play, modelling, shared language, group work etc. to the intervention to help patients and families have agency in the process of escalation of care. The interventions included components such as enabling patients and families to detect changes in patients' conditions and to speak up about these changes to staff. We also included studies where the intervention included a component targeted at enabling staff response.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seven of the eight authors were involved in screening; two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, with any disagreements resolved by discussion to reach consensus. Primary outcomes included patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events. Our advisory group (four users and four providers) ensured that the review was of relevance and could inform policy and practice.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies involving 436,684 patients and family members and one ongoing study. The published studies focused on patients with specific conditions such as coronary artery disease, ischaemic stroke, and asthma, as well as pregnant women, inpatients on medical surgical wards, older adults and high-risk patients with a history of poor self-management. While all studies tested interventions versus usual care, for four studies the usual care group also received educational or information strategies. Seven of the interventions involved face-to-face, interactional education/coaching sessions aimed at patients/families while two provided multi-component education programmes which included components targeted at staff as well as patients/families. All of the interventions included: (1) an educational component about the acute condition and preparedness for future events such as stroke or change in fetal movements: (2) an engagement element (self-monitoring, action plans); while two additionally focused on shared language or communication skills. We had concerns about risk of bias for all but one of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, particularly regarding blinding of participants and personnel. Our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was moderate to low. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be moderate improvement in patients' knowledge of acute life-threatening conditions, danger signs, appropriate care-seeking responses, and preparedness capacity between interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes and usual care at 12 months (MD 4.20, 95% CI 2.44 to 5.97, 2 studies, 687 participants). Four studies in total assessed knowledge (3,086 participants) but we were unable to include two other studies in the pooled analysis due to differences in the way outcome measures were reported. One found no improvement in knowledge but higher symptom preparedness at 12 months. The other study found an improvement in patients' knowledge about symptoms and appropriate care-seeking responses in the intervention group at 18 months compared with usual care. Low-certainty evidence from two studies, each using a different measure, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of patient-based interventions on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was higher in the intervention group in one study but there was no difference in the other compared with usual care. We are uncertain whether interactional patient-facing and multi-component programmes improve time from the start of patient symptoms to treatment due to low-certainty evidence for this outcome. We were unable to combine the data due to differences in outcome measures. Three studies found that arrival times or prehospital delay time was no different between groups. One found that delay time was shorter in the intervention group. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that multi-component interventions probably have little or no impact on mortality rates. Only one study on a pregnant population was eligible for inclusion in the review, which found no difference between groups in rates of stillbirth. In terms of unintended events, we found that interactional patient-facing interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels (moderate-certainty evidence). None of the studies measured or reported patient and family perceptions of involvement in escalation of care or patient and family experience of patient care. Reported outcomes related to healthcare professionals were also not reported in any studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review identified that interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes (including staff) to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness may improve patient and family knowledge about danger signs and care-seeking responses, and probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels when compared to usual care. Multi-component interventions probably have little impact on mortality rates. Further high-quality trials are required using multi-component interventions and a focus on relational elements of care. Cognitive and behavioural outcomes should be included at patient and staff level.

Acute clinical deterioration and consumer escalation in the hospital setting: A literature review

BACKGROUND

Consumer escalation systems that allow patients and/or their family/carers to escalate concerns about clinical deterioration have been proposed as a way of enhancing patient safety. However, evidence to guide implementation or to support system effectiveness remains unclear.

AIM

To critically evaluate the current evidence surrounding consumer escalation within the context of clinical deterioration to identify the strengths, weaknesses and gaps in existing knowledge, essential themes, and directions for further investigation.

METHOD

Database searches were conducted within Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for articles directly relating to consumer escalation systems published, in English, within the previous 10 year-period. Titles and abstracts were screened and relevant full-text articles included. Content was examined to identify breadth of knowledge, essential themes, and the effectiveness of current systems.

RESULTS

27 articles, containing a mixture of both quantitative and qualitative findings, were identified. Within the context of limitations in the overall depth and quality of current evidence, four key areas (relating to consumer understanding and awareness of clinical deterioration, confidence and ability to escalate concerns, education, and staff attitudes) were identified as potentially critical to the foundation, functioning, and success of consumer escalation systems. Consumer escalation processes may contribute positive effects beyond mortality rates; however, an agreed method of assessing effectiveness remains undetermined.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of consumer escalation processes to achieve their underlying goals is still to be adequately assessed. Further research is required to inform how to best implement, support and optimise consumer escalation systems.

Parent escalation of care for the deteriorating child in hospital: A health-care improvement study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the implementation of an intervention for parents to escalate care if concerned about their child's clinical condition.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods health-care improvement approach guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

METHODS

Implementation of the 'Calling for Help' (C4H) intervention was informed by previously identified barriers and facilitators. Evaluation involved audit, review of clinical deterioration incidents, interviews and focus groups.

SETTING

Australian specialist paediatric hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Convenience sample of 75 parents from inpatient areas during the audit, interviews with ten parents who had expressed concern about their child's clinical condition; five focus groups with 35 ward nurses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Parent awareness and utilization of C4H, parent and nurse views of factors influencing implementation.

RESULTS

Parent awareness of C4H improved to 35% (25/75). Parent concern was documented prior to 21/174 (12%) clinical deterioration events. All interviewed parents and nurses who participated in focus groups were positive about C4H. Parents preferred to be informed about C4H by nurses, but nurses described this as time-consuming and selectively chose parents who they believed would benefit most. Parents and nurses described frustrations with and trepidation in escalating care. Nurses had used C4H to expedite urgent medical review.

CONCLUSIONS

There was an improvement in the level of parent awareness of C4H, which was viewed positively by parents and nurses alike. To achieve a high level of parent awareness in a sustainable way, a multifaceted approach is required. Further strategies will be required for parents to feel confident enough to use C4H and to address interprofessional communication barriers.

Consumers' perspectives on their involvement in recognizing and responding to patient deterioration-Developing a model for consumer reporting

BACKGROUND

Adverse events occur in health care. Detection and reporting of deterioration therefore have a critical role to play. Patient and family member (consumer) involvement in patient safety has gained powerful support amongst global policymakers. Few studies, with none taking a rigorous qualitative approach, have drawn upon consumers' experiences to establish their preferences in consumer reporting of patient deterioration programmes.

OBJECTIVE

To explore consumers' experiences of previous reporting of patient deterioration; their preferred educational strategies on this role and recommended pathways in a consumer reporting of patient deterioration model.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

An interpretive, qualitative research design was utilized. Nine focus group interviews were undertaken across Adelaide, capital city of South Australia. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed and analysed thematically. Twenty-six adults described, then reflected, on previous experiences of reporting patient deterioration.

RESULTS

Overarching themes incorporated consumers' experiences and patient/family education. Three themes emerged in relation to consumers' experiences: feelings, thoughts and actions. Five themes arose on educating consumers: content, timing, format, information providers and information recipients. The consumers' deep reflections on their past reporting experiences led to the development of a new model for consumer reporting of patient deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

Consumers' views on ways to improve consumer reporting of patient deterioration processes emerged. These improvements include structured educational programmes for staff advocating open health-care professional/consumer communication, educational materials developed and tested with English-speaking and culturally and linguistically diverse consumers and a model with three consumer reporting pathways.