Differences in identification of patients' deterioration may hamper the success of clinical escalation protocols

Crisis Checklist Collaborative , Ashley J.R. de Bie (Corresponding author), Rick Bezemer

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

Uittreksel

BACKGROUND: Timely and consistent recognition of a 'clinical crisis', a life threatening condition that demands immediate intervention, is essential to reduce 'failure to rescue' rates in general wards. AIM: To determine how different clinical caregivers define a 'clinical crisis' and how they respond to it. DESIGN: An international survey. METHODS: Clinicians working on general wards, intensive care units or emergency departments in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark were asked to review ten scenarios based on common real-life cases. Then they were asked to grade the urgency and severity of the scenario, their degree of concern, their estimate for the risk for death and indicate their preferred action for escalation. The primary outcome was the scenarios with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) ≥7 considered to be a 'clinical crisis'. Secondary outcomes included how often a rapid response system (RRS) was activated, and if this was influenced by the participant's professional role or experience. The data from all participants in all three countries was pooled for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 150 clinicians participated in the survey. The highest percentage of clinicians that considered one of the three scenarios with a NEWS ≥7 as a 'clinical crisis' was 52%, while a RRS was activated by <50% of participants. Professional roles and job experience only had a minor influence on the recognition of a 'clinical crisis' and how it should be responded to. CONCLUSION: This international survey indicates that clinicians differ on what they consider to be a 'clinical crisis' and on how it should be managed. Even in cases with a markedly abnormal physiology (i.e. NEWS ≥7) many clinicians do not consider immediate activation of a RRS is required.

Originele taal-2Engels
Pagina's (van-tot)497-504
Aantal pagina's8
TijdschriftQJM : Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians
Volume112
Nummer van het tijdschrift7
DOI's
StatusGepubliceerd - 1 jul 2019

Vingerafdruk

Clinical Protocols
Professional Role
Patients' Rooms
Denmark
Netherlands
Caregivers
Intensive Care Units
Hospital Emergency Service
Surveys and Questionnaires

Citeer dit

@article{39df092d686147acb682932c1af14cf4,
title = "Differences in identification of patients' deterioration may hamper the success of clinical escalation protocols",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Timely and consistent recognition of a 'clinical crisis', a life threatening condition that demands immediate intervention, is essential to reduce 'failure to rescue' rates in general wards. AIM: To determine how different clinical caregivers define a 'clinical crisis' and how they respond to it. DESIGN: An international survey. METHODS: Clinicians working on general wards, intensive care units or emergency departments in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark were asked to review ten scenarios based on common real-life cases. Then they were asked to grade the urgency and severity of the scenario, their degree of concern, their estimate for the risk for death and indicate their preferred action for escalation. The primary outcome was the scenarios with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) ≥7 considered to be a 'clinical crisis'. Secondary outcomes included how often a rapid response system (RRS) was activated, and if this was influenced by the participant's professional role or experience. The data from all participants in all three countries was pooled for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 150 clinicians participated in the survey. The highest percentage of clinicians that considered one of the three scenarios with a NEWS ≥7 as a 'clinical crisis' was 52{\%}, while a RRS was activated by <50{\%} of participants. Professional roles and job experience only had a minor influence on the recognition of a 'clinical crisis' and how it should be responded to. CONCLUSION: This international survey indicates that clinicians differ on what they consider to be a 'clinical crisis' and on how it should be managed. Even in cases with a markedly abnormal physiology (i.e. NEWS ≥7) many clinicians do not consider immediate activation of a RRS is required.",
author = "{Crisis Checklist Collaborative} and {de Bie}, {Ashley J.R.} and C.P. Subbe and Rick Bezemer and T. Cooksley and J.G. Kellett and M. Holland and Bouwman, {Robert A.} and A.J.G.H. Bindels and H.H.M. Korsten",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/qjmed/hcz052",
language = "English",
volume = "112",
pages = "497--504",
journal = "QJM : Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians",
issn = "1460-2725",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "7",

}

Differences in identification of patients' deterioration may hamper the success of clinical escalation protocols. / Crisis Checklist Collaborative ; de Bie, Ashley J.R. (Corresponding author); Bezemer, Rick.

In: QJM : Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians, Vol. 112, Nr. 7, 01.07.2019, blz. 497-504.

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differences in identification of patients' deterioration may hamper the success of clinical escalation protocols

AU - Crisis Checklist Collaborative

AU - de Bie, Ashley J.R.

AU - Subbe, C.P.

AU - Bezemer, Rick

AU - Cooksley, T.

AU - Kellett, J.G.

AU - Holland, M.

AU - Bouwman, Robert A.

AU - Bindels, A.J.G.H.

AU - Korsten, H.H.M.

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Timely and consistent recognition of a 'clinical crisis', a life threatening condition that demands immediate intervention, is essential to reduce 'failure to rescue' rates in general wards. AIM: To determine how different clinical caregivers define a 'clinical crisis' and how they respond to it. DESIGN: An international survey. METHODS: Clinicians working on general wards, intensive care units or emergency departments in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark were asked to review ten scenarios based on common real-life cases. Then they were asked to grade the urgency and severity of the scenario, their degree of concern, their estimate for the risk for death and indicate their preferred action for escalation. The primary outcome was the scenarios with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) ≥7 considered to be a 'clinical crisis'. Secondary outcomes included how often a rapid response system (RRS) was activated, and if this was influenced by the participant's professional role or experience. The data from all participants in all three countries was pooled for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 150 clinicians participated in the survey. The highest percentage of clinicians that considered one of the three scenarios with a NEWS ≥7 as a 'clinical crisis' was 52%, while a RRS was activated by <50% of participants. Professional roles and job experience only had a minor influence on the recognition of a 'clinical crisis' and how it should be responded to. CONCLUSION: This international survey indicates that clinicians differ on what they consider to be a 'clinical crisis' and on how it should be managed. Even in cases with a markedly abnormal physiology (i.e. NEWS ≥7) many clinicians do not consider immediate activation of a RRS is required.

AB - BACKGROUND: Timely and consistent recognition of a 'clinical crisis', a life threatening condition that demands immediate intervention, is essential to reduce 'failure to rescue' rates in general wards. AIM: To determine how different clinical caregivers define a 'clinical crisis' and how they respond to it. DESIGN: An international survey. METHODS: Clinicians working on general wards, intensive care units or emergency departments in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark were asked to review ten scenarios based on common real-life cases. Then they were asked to grade the urgency and severity of the scenario, their degree of concern, their estimate for the risk for death and indicate their preferred action for escalation. The primary outcome was the scenarios with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) ≥7 considered to be a 'clinical crisis'. Secondary outcomes included how often a rapid response system (RRS) was activated, and if this was influenced by the participant's professional role or experience. The data from all participants in all three countries was pooled for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 150 clinicians participated in the survey. The highest percentage of clinicians that considered one of the three scenarios with a NEWS ≥7 as a 'clinical crisis' was 52%, while a RRS was activated by <50% of participants. Professional roles and job experience only had a minor influence on the recognition of a 'clinical crisis' and how it should be responded to. CONCLUSION: This international survey indicates that clinicians differ on what they consider to be a 'clinical crisis' and on how it should be managed. Even in cases with a markedly abnormal physiology (i.e. NEWS ≥7) many clinicians do not consider immediate activation of a RRS is required.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069269747&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/qjmed/hcz052

DO - 10.1093/qjmed/hcz052

M3 - Article

C2 - 30828732

AN - SCOPUS:85069269747

VL - 112

SP - 497

EP - 504

JO - QJM : Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians

JF - QJM : Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians

SN - 1460-2725

IS - 7

ER -