Effectiveness of ways to improve detection and rescue of deteriorating patients

The burden of critical illness among adults in a Swedish region-a population-based point-prevalence study

BACKGROUND

Patients with critical illness have a high risk of mortality. Key decision-making in the health system affecting the outcomes of critically ill patients requires epidemiological evidence, but the burden of critical illness is largely unknown. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of critical illness in a Swedish region. Secondary objectives were to estimate the proportion of hospital inpatients who are critically ill and to describe the in-hospital location of critically ill patients.

METHODS

A prospective, multi-center, population-based, point-prevalence study on specific days in 2017-2018. All adult (> 18 years) in-patients, regardless of admitting specially, in all acute hospitals in Sörmland, and the patients from Sörmland who had been referred to university hospitals, were included. Patients in the operating theatres, with a psychiatric cause of admission, women in active labor and moribund patients, were excluded. All participants were examined by trained data collectors. Critical illness was defined as "a state of ill health with vital organ dysfunction, a high risk of imminent death if care is not provided and a potential for reversibility". The presence of one or more severely deranged vital signs was used to classify critical illness. The prevalence of critical illness was calculated as the number of critically ill patients divided by the number of adults in the region.

RESULTS

A total of 1269 patients were included in the study. Median age was 74 years and 50% of patients were female. Critical illness was present in 133 patients, resulting in an adult population prevalence of critical illness per 100,000 people of 19.4 (95% CI 16.4-23.0). The proportion of patients in hospital who were critically ill was 10.5% (95% CI 8.8-12.3%). Among the critically ill, 125 [95% CI 94.0% (88.4-97.0%)] were cared for in general wards.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of critical illness was higher than previous, indirect estimates. One in ten hospitalized patients were critically ill, the large majority of which were cared for in general wards. This suggests a hidden burden of critical illness of potential public health, health system and hospital management significance.

Why do healthcare professionals fail to escalate as per the early warning system (EWS) protocol? A qualitative evidence synthesis of the barriers and facilitators of escalation

Background

Early warning systems (EWSs) are used to assist clinical judgment in the detection of acute deterioration to avoid or reduce adverse events including unanticipated cardiopulmonary arrest, admission to the intensive care unit and death. Sometimes healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not trigger the alarm and escalate for help according to the EWS protocol and it is unclear why this is the case. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to answer the question ‘why do HCPs fail to escalate care according to EWS protocols?’ The findings will inform the update of the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) National Clinical Guideline No. 1 Irish National Early Warning System (INEWS).

Methods

A systematic search of the published and grey literature was conducted (until February 2018). Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using standardised data extraction forms and quality appraisal tools. A thematic synthesis was conducted by two reviewers of the qualitative studies included and categorised into the barriers and facilitators of escalation. GRADE CERQual was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Results

Eighteen studies incorporating a variety of HCPs across seven countries were included. The barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care according to EWS protocols were developed into five overarching themes: Governance, Rapid Response Team (RRT) Response, Professional Boundaries, Clinical Experience, and EWS parameters. Barriers to escalation included: Lack of Standardisation, Resources, Lack of accountability, RRT behaviours, Fear, Hierarchy, Increased Conflict, Over confidence, Lack of confidence, and Patient variability. Facilitators included: Accountability, Standardisation, Resources, RRT behaviours, Expertise, Additional support, License to escalate, Bridge across boundaries, Clinical confidence, empowerment, Clinical judgment, and a tool for detecting deterioration. These are all individual yet inter-related barriers and facilitators to escalation.

Conclusions

The findings of this qualitative evidence synthesis provide insight into the real world experience of HCPs when using EWSs. This in turn has the potential to inform policy-makers and HCPs as well as hospital management about emergency response system-related issues in practice and the changes needed to address barriers and facilitators and improve patient safety and quality of care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-021-00403-9.

Interventions to reduce mortality from in-hospital cardiac arrest: a mixed-methods study

Background

Unchecked patient deterioration can lead to in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and avoidable death. The National Cardiac Arrest Audit (NCAA) has found fourfold variation in IHCA rates and survival between English hospitals. Key to reducing IHCA is both the identification of patients at risk of deterioration and prompt response. A range of targeted interventions have been introduced but implementation varies between hospitals. These differences are likely to contribute to the observed variation between and within hospitals over time.

Objective

To determine how interventions aimed at identification and management of deteriorating patients are associated with IHCA rates and outcomes.

Design

A mixed-methods study involving a systematic literature review, semistructured interviews with 60 NHS staff, an organisational survey in 171 hospitals and interrupted time series and difference-in-difference analyses (106 hospitals).

Setting

English hospitals participating in the NCAA audit.

Participants

NHS staff (approximately 300) and patients (13 million).

Interventions

Education, track-and-trigger systems (TTSs), standardised handover tools and outreach teams.

Main outcome measures

IHCA rates, survival and hospital-wide mortality.

Data sources

NCAA, Hospital Episode Statistics, Office for National Statistics Mortality Statistics.

Methods

A literature review and qualitative interviews were used to design an organisational survey that determined how interventions have been implemented in practice and across time. Associations between variations in services and IHCA rates and survival were determined using cross-sectional, interrupted time series and difference-in-difference analyses over the index study period (2009/10 to 2014/15).

Results

Across NCAA hospitals, IHCAs fell by 6.4% per year and survival increased by 5% per year, with hospital mortality decreasing by a similar amount. A national, standard TTS [the National Early Warning Score (NEWS)], introduced in 2012, was adopted by 70% of hospitals by 2015. By 2015, one-third of hospitals had converted from paper-based TTSs to electronic TTSs, and there had been an increase in the number of hospitals with an outreach team and an increase in the number with a team available at all times. The extent of variation in the uses of educational courses and structured handover tools was limited, with 90% of hospitals reporting use of standardised communication tools, such as situation, background, assessment and recommendation, in 2015. Introduction of the NEWS was associated with an additional 8.4% decrease in IHCA rates and, separately, a conversion from paper to electronic TTS use was associated with an additional 7.6% decrease. However, there was no associated change in IHCA survival or hospital mortality. Outreach teams were not associated with a change in IHCA rates, survival or hospital mortality. A sensitivity analysis restricted to ward-based IHCAs did not alter the findings but did identify an association between increased outreach team intensity in 2015 and IHCA survival.

Limitations

The organisational survey was not able to explore all aspects of the interventions and the contextual factors that influenced them. Changes over time were dependent on respondents’ recall.

Conclusions

Standardisation of TTSs and introduction of electronic TTSs are associated with a reduction in IHCAs. The apparent lack of impact of outreach teams may reflect their mode of introduction, that their effect is through providing support for implementation of TTS or that the organisation of the response to deterioration is not critical, as long as it is timely. Their role in end-of-life decision-making may account for the observed association with IHCA survival.

Future work

To assess the potential impact of outreach teams at hospital level and patient level, and to establish which component of the TTS has the greatest effect on outcomes.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.