Communication and general concern criterion prior to activation of the rapid response team: a grounded theory
Jarrad Martland A D , Diane Chamberlain B , Alison Hutton B and Michael Smigielski CA Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders Drive, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia.
B Flinders University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia. Email: di.chamberlain@flinders.edu.au; alison.hutton@flinders.edu.au
C Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia. Email: michael.smigielski@health.sa.gov.au
D Corresponding author. Email: martlandjarrad@gmail.com
Australian Health Review 40(5) 477-483 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15123
Submitted: 26 June 2015 Accepted: 12 October 2015 Published: 30 November 2015
Abstract
Objective Patients commonly show signs and symptoms of deterioration for hours or days before cardiorespiratory arrest. Rapid response teams (RRT) were created to improve recognition and response to patient deterioration in these situations. Activation criteria include vital signs or ‘general concern’ by a clinician or family member. The general concern criterion for RRT activation accounts for nearly one-third of all RRT activity, and although it is well established that communication deficits between staff can contribute to poorer outcomes for patients, there is little evidence pertaining to communication and its effects on the general concern RRT activation. Thus, the aim of the present study was to develop a substantive grounded theory related to the communication process between clinicians that preceded the activation of an RRT when general concern criterion was used.
Methods Qualitative grounded theory involved collection of three types of data details namely personal notes from participants in focus groups with white board notes from discussions and audio recordings of the focus groups sessions. Focus groups were conducted with participants exploring issues associated with clinician communication and how it related to the activation of an RRT using the general concern criterion.
Results The three main phases of coding (i.e. open, axial and selective coding) analysis identified 322 separate open codes. The strongest theme contributed to a theory of ineffective communication and decreased psychological safety, namely that ‘In the absence of effective communication there is a subsequent increase in anxiety, fear or concern that can be directly attributed to the activation of an RRT using the ‘general concern’ criterion’. The RRT filled cultural and process deficiencies in the compliance with an escalation protocol. Issues such as ‘not for resuscitation documentation’ and ‘inability to establish communication with and between medical or nursing personnel’ rated highly and contributed to the debate.
Conclusions This study highlighted that in the surveillance and management of the deteriorating patient and in the absence of effective communication there is a subsequent increase in anxiety, fear or concern that can be directly attributed to the activation of an RRT for the ‘general concern’ calling criteria.
What is known about the topic? Deficiencies in collaboration and communication between healthcare professionals (HCPs) increase the stress and anxiety of healthcare staff and correspond to poorer outcomes for patients. The RRT can be activated as a ‘general concern RRT’ without observation of physiological derangements if staff are concerned about a patient’s condition, allowing for assistance from a skilled critical care team at the patient’s bedside. There are limited data on how poor communication affects the frequency of activation of general concern RRTs.
What does this paper add? This study shows that poor communication between health professionals increases staff levels of anxiety and concern. In addition, the RRT system is being used to fill deficiencies in many other hospital processes, including end-of-life discussions. The deficiencies in hospital processes contribute to poor communication and increased levels of concern with this study demonstrating a direct link between a clinician’s level of anxiety/concern and the ‘general concern’ activation category for the RRT system.
What are the implications for practitioners? The present study highlights the importance of effective communication strategies between HCPs to improve patient safety and quality of care. The study also highlights the expanding role of the RRT in hospitals, which has implications for hospital policy makers with regard to future funding and resource allocation. Finally, many of the concerns raised in the present study by the focus groups have been addressed by recent measures introduced through the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (e.g. rapid detection and response observation charts and Introduction, Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation [ISBAR] style of communication) with these measures supported by the findings of the present study.
Additional keywords: anxiety, deterioration.
References
[1] Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS). ANZICS statement on care and decision-making at the end of life for the critically ill. Edition 1.0. Melbourne: ANZICS; 2014.[2] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). National consensus statement: essential elements for recognising and responding to clinical deterioration. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2010.
[3] Jones B, McIntyre T, Story D, Mercer I, Miglic A, Goldsmith D, Bellomo R. Nurses’ attitudes to a medical emergency team service in a teaching hospital. Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15 427–32.
| Nurses’ attitudes to a medical emergency team service in a teaching hospital.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD28jgsF2lsA%3D%3D&md5=dd894a44c026e981f6161cbacddba542CAS |
[4] Malloy DC, Hadjistavropoulos T, McCarthy EF, Evans RJ, Zakus DH, Park I, Lee Y, Williams J. Culture and organizational climate: nurses’ insights into their relationship with physicians. Nurs Ethics 2009; 16 719–33.
| Culture and organizational climate: nurses’ insights into their relationship with physicians.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19889913PubMed |
[5] Tang CJ, Chan SW, Zhou WT, Liaw SY. Collaboration between hospital physicians and nurses: an integrated literature review. Int Nurs Rev 2013; 60 291–302.
| Collaboration between hospital physicians and nurses: an integrated literature review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3sbhsFWrtw%3D%3D&md5=b018c54c2cc440353560ece6720870eeCAS | 23961790PubMed |
[6] Makary MA, Sexton JB, Freischlag JA, Holzmueller CG, Millman EA, Rowen L, Pronovost PJ. Operating room teamwork among physicians and nurses: teamwork in the eye of the beholder. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 202 746–52.
| Operating room teamwork among physicians and nurses: teamwork in the eye of the beholder.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16648014PubMed |
[7] Rosenstein AH, O’Daniel M. Disruptive behavior and clinical outcomes: perceptions of nurses and physicians. Am J Nurs 2005; 105 54–64.
| Disruptive behavior and clinical outcomes: perceptions of nurses and physicians.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15659998PubMed |
[8] Parr M, Hadfield J, Flabouris A, Bishop G, Hillman K. The medical emergency team: 12 month analysis of reasons for activation, immediate outcome and not-for-resuscitation orders. Resuscitation 2001; 50 39–44.
| The medical emergency team: 12 month analysis of reasons for activation, immediate outcome and not-for-resuscitation orders.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3Mnnt1Ojuw%3D%3D&md5=4f2f57647dbf2839cddafb8424089f67CAS | 11719127PubMed |
[9] The Joint Commission. Sentinel event data: root causes by event type 2004–2Q 2014. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: The Joint Commission; 2014. Available at: http://www.jointcommission.org/Sentinel_Event_Statistics [verified 26 August 2015].
[10] Santiano N, Young L, Hillman K, Parr M, Jayasinghe S, Baramy L, Stevenson J, Heath T, Chan C, Claire M, Hanger G. Analysis of medical emergency team calls comparing subjective to ‘objective’ call criteria. Resuscitiation 2009; 80 44–9.
| Analysis of medical emergency team calls comparing subjective to ‘objective’ call criteria.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Cioffi J, Conwayt R, Everist L, Scott J, Senior J. Patients of concern to nurses in acute care settings: a descriptive study. Aust Crit Care 2009; 22 178–86.
| Patients of concern to nurses in acute care settings: a descriptive study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19726207PubMed |
[12] Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 4th edn. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2014.
[13] The ANZICS-CORE MET Dose Investigators Rapid response team composition, resourcing and calling criteria in Australia. Resuscitation 2012; 83 563–7.
| Rapid response team composition, resourcing and calling criteria in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22067975PubMed |
[14] Chen J, Bellomo R, Hillman K, Flabouris A, Finfer S, MERIT Study Investigators for the Simpson Centre and the ANZICS Clinical Trials Group Triggers for emergency team activation: a multicenter assessment. J Crit Care 2010; 25 359.e1–e7.
| Triggers for emergency team activation: a multicenter assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Butler S, editor. Macquarie Concise Dictionary, 6th edn. Sydney: Macquarie Dictionary Publishers; 2013.
[16] McElroy LM, Ladner DP, Holl JL. The role of technology in clinician-to-clinician communication. BMJ Qual Saf 2013; 22 981–3.
| The role of technology in clinician-to-clinician communication.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23873757PubMed |
[17] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). Safety and quality of end-of-life care in acute hospitals: a background paper. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2013.
[18] Fidler H, Thompson C, Freeman A, Hogan D, Walker G, Weinman J. Barriers to implementing a policy not to attempt resuscitation in acute medical admissions: prospective, cross sectional study of a successive cohort. BMJ 2006; 332 461–2.
| Barriers to implementing a policy not to attempt resuscitation in acute medical admissions: prospective, cross sectional study of a successive cohort.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD287htVOqtg%3D%3D&md5=4b908f366cd4a44905018cdfc2ffec77CAS | 16473857PubMed |
[19] Coventry C, Flabouris A, Sundararajan K, Cramey T. Rapid response team calls to patients with a pre-existing not for resuscitation order. Resuscitation 2013; 84 1035–9.
| Rapid response team calls to patients with a pre-existing not for resuscitation order.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23376582PubMed |
[20] Bradfield OM. Ward rounds: the next focus for quality improvement? Aust Health Rev 2010; 34 193–6.
| Ward rounds: the next focus for quality improvement?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20497732PubMed |
[21] Krautter M, Koehl-Hackert N, Nagelmann L, Jünger J, Norcini J, Tekian A, Nikendei C. Improving ward round skills. Med Teach 2014; 36 783–8.
| Improving ward round skills.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24804913PubMed |
[22] Salas E, Frush K. Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.
[23] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). Safety and quality improvement guide standard 6: clinical handover. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2013.
[24] Gazarian P, Henneman E, Chandler G. Nurse decision making in the pre-arrest period. Clin Nurs Res 2010; 19 21–37.
| Nurse decision making in the pre-arrest period.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19955229PubMed |
[25] Roussin C, MacLean T, Rudolph J.. The safety in unsafe teams: a multilevel approach to team psychological safety. J Manag 2014;
| The safety in unsafe teams: a multilevel approach to team psychological safety.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
