Register      Login
Australian Health Review Australian Health Review Society
Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AH > AH24041
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 48(4)

Improving the pre-medical emergency team: the case for a behavioural theoretical lens

Judy Currey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0574-0054 A , Stephanie K. Sprogis https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4259-6976 A * , Daryl Jones https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6446-3595 B C D and Julie Considine AO https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3801-2456 A E
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A School of Nursing and Midwifery & Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research in the Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, Vic. 3220, Australia.

B Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Vic. 3084, Australia.

C School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 533 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia.

D Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3010, Australia.

E Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research – Eastern Health Partnership, 2/5 Arnold Street, Box Hill, Vic. 3128, Australia.

* Correspondence to: s.sprogis@deakin.edu.au

Australian Health Review 48(4) 371-373 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH24041
Submitted: 19 February 2024  Accepted: 20 March 2024  Published: 5 April 2024

© 2024 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of AHHA.

Abstract

There is mounting evidence that the pre-medical emergency team (pre-MET) of rapid response systems is underutilised in clinical practice due to suboptimal structures and processes and resource constraints. In this perspective article, we argue for examining the pre-MET through a ‘Behaviour Change Wheel’ lens to improve the pre-MET and maximise the associated patient safety benefits. Using pre-MET communication practices as an example, we illustrate the value of the COM-B model, where clinicians’ ‘capability’, ‘opportunity’, and ‘motivation’ drive ‘behaviour’. Optimising clinicians’ behaviours and establishing failsafe rapid response systems is a complex undertaking; however, examining clinicians’ behaviours through the COM-B model enables reframing barriers and facilitators to develop multifaceted and coordinated solutions that are behaviourally and theoretically based. The COM-B model is recommended to clinical governance leaders and health services researchers to explore the underlying causes of behaviour and successfully enact change in the design, implementation, and use of the pre-MET to improve patient safety.

Keywords: clinical deterioration, health services research, hospital rapid response team, implementation science, interdisciplinary communication, patient safety, quality improvement, theory.

References

1  Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. National consensus statement: Essential elements for recognising and responding to acute physiological deterioration, 3rd edn. Sydney; 2021. Available at https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/essential_elements_for_recognising_and_responding_to_acute_physiological_deterioration.pdf [verified 14 January 2024].

2  Sprogis SK, Currey J, Jones D, et al. Use of the pre-medical emergency team tier of rapid response systems: A scoping review. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2021; 65: 103041.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

3  Sprogis SK, Currey J, Considine J, et al. Physiological antecedents and ward clinician responses before medical emergency team activation. Crit Care Resusc 2017; 19: 50-6.
| Google Scholar | PubMed |

4  Bingham G, Fossum M, Barratt M, et al. Clinical review criteria and medical emergency teams: Evaluating a two-tier rapid response system. Crit Care Resusc 2015; 17: 167-73.
| Google Scholar | PubMed |

5  O’Connell A, Flabouris A, Kim SW, et al. A newly designed observation and response chart’s effect upon adverse inpatient outcomes and rapid response team activity. Intern Med J 2016; 46: 909-16.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

6  Frost SA, Chapman A, Aneman A, et al. Hospital outcomes associated with introduction of a two-tiered response to the deteriorating patient. Crit Care Resusc 2015; 17: 77-82.
| Google Scholar | PubMed |

7  Tan SC, Hayes L, Cross A, et al. Pre–medical emergency team activations – Patient characteristics, outcomes and predictors of deterioration. Aust Crit Care 2023; 36: 1078-83.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

8  Sprogis SK, Currey J, Jones D, et al. Understanding the pre-medical emergency team tier of a mature rapid response system: A content analysis of guidance documents. Aust Crit Care 2021; 34: 427-34.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

9  Sprogis SK, Currey J, Jones D, et al. Clinicians’ use and perceptions of the pre-medical emergency team tier of one rapid response system: A mixed-methods study. Aust Crit Care 2023; 36: 1050-8.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

10  Sprogis SK, Currey J, Jones D, et al. Exploring interdisciplinary communication pathways for escalating pre-medical emergency team deterioration: a mixed-methods study. Aust Health Rev 2023; 47: 494-501.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

11  Donabedian A. An introduction to quality assurance in health care. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.

12  Currey J, Macaulay M, Jones D, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving review requests for pre-medical emergency team deterioration: A cohort study. Aust Health Rev 2021; 46: 28-34.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

13  Flabouris A, Nandal S, Vater L, et al. Multi-tiered observation and response charts: Prevalence and incidence of triggers, modifications and calls, to acutely deteriorating adult patients. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0145339.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

14  Bingham G, Fossum M, Hughes L, et al. The pre-Medical Emergency Team response: Nurses’ decision-making escalating deterioration to treating teams using urgent review criteria. J Adv Nurs 2020; 76: 2171-81.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

15  Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011; 6: 42-53.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

16  Buist M, Arnold G. Clinical futile cycles: systematic microeconomic reform of health care by reform of the traditional hierarchical referral model of care. In: Salen PN, Stawicki SP, editors. Contemportary topics in patient safety – Vol. 2. IntechOpen; 2022. pp. 1–22. Available at https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/82848 [verified 6 January 2024].

17  Currey J, Allen J, Jones D. Critical care clinician perceptions of factors leading to medical emergency team review. Aust Crit Care 2018; 31: 87-92.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

18  Chua WL, Legido-Quigley H, Jones D, et al. A call for better doctor-nurse collaboration: A qualitative study of the experiences of junior doctors and nurses in escalating care for deteriorating ward patients. Aust Crit Care 2020; 33: 54-61.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

19  Buist MD. How I nearly MET my maker: a story of clinical futile cycles and survival. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2010; 36: 334-6.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

20  Curtis K, Elphick T-L, Eyles M, et al. Identifying facilitators and barriers to develop implementation strategy for an ED to Ward handover tool using behaviour change theory (EDWHAT). Implement Sci Comm 2020; 1: 71.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

21  Munroe B, Curtis K, Fry M, et al. Implementation evaluation of a rapid response system in a regional emergency department: a dual-methods study using the behaviour change wheel. Aust Crit Care 2023; 36: 743-53.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

22  Noble LM, Scott-Smith W, O’Neill B, et al. Consensus statement on an updated core communication curriculum for UK undergraduate medical education. Patient Educ Couns 2018; 101: 1712-9.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |