Debbie Massey1, Wendy Chaboyer2, Leanne Aitken3. 1. Clinical Sciences 2 (G16) 2.49, School of Nursing and Midwifery - Gold Coast, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia. Electronic address: d.massey@griffith.edu.au. 2. Clinical Sciences 2 (G16) 2.62, Centre of Research Excellence in Nursing (NCREN), School of Nursing and Midwifery - Gold Coast, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia. Electronic address: w.chaboyer@griffith.edu.au. 3. Health Sciences (N48) 2.09, School of Nursing and Midwifery - Nathan, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, QLD 4111, Australia. Electronic address: l.aitken@griffith.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical Emergency Teams (METs) have been developed and implemented with the aim of improving recognition of and response to deteriorating patients. Yet, METs are often not activated or used effectively by nursing staff. The reasons for this are not fully understood. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore nurses' experiences and perceptions of using and activating a MET, in order to understand the facilitators and barriers to nurse's use of the MET. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: An interpretive qualitative approach was adopted to explore nurses' experiences and perceptions of using and activating the MET. This study was set in a large public teaching hospital in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Fifteen registered ward nurses who had cared for patients who had deteriorated on the ward, and as a result of this deterioration were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) as an unplanned admission, were interviewed about their experiences and perceptions of using a MET. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with ward nurses who had cared for a patient who had deteriorated. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interviews were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: Four themes relating to the participants' experiences and perceptions of using a MET emerged from the data. These themes were: (1) sensing clinical deterioration; (2) resisting and hesitating; (3) pushing the button; and (4) support and leadership. CONCLUSION: This work identifies why nurses do not activate METs appropriately. This delay in MET activation potentially exposes the deteriorating patient to suboptimal care and increases the risk of adverse events. Crown
BACKGROUND: Medical Emergency Teams (METs) have been developed and implemented with the aim of improving recognition of and response to deteriorating patients. Yet, METs are often not activated or used effectively by nursing staff. The reasons for this are not fully understood. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore nurses' experiences and perceptions of using and activating a MET, in order to understand the facilitators and barriers to nurse's use of the MET. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: An interpretive qualitative approach was adopted to explore nurses' experiences and perceptions of using and activating the MET. This study was set in a large public teaching hospital in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Fifteen registered ward nurses who had cared for patients who had deteriorated on the ward, and as a result of this deterioration were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) as an unplanned admission, were interviewed about their experiences and perceptions of using a MET. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with ward nurses who had cared for a patient who had deteriorated. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interviews were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: Four themes relating to the participants' experiences and perceptions of using a MET emerged from the data. These themes were: (1) sensing clinical deterioration; (2) resisting and hesitating; (3) pushing the button; and (4) support and leadership. CONCLUSION: This work identifies why nurses do not activate METs appropriately. This delay in MET activation potentially exposes the deteriorating patient to suboptimal care and increases the risk of adverse events. Crown
Authors: Gooske Douw; Lisette Schoonhoven; Tineke Holwerda; Getty Huisman-de Waal; Arthur R H van Zanten; Theo van Achterberg; Johannes G van der Hoeven Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Wei Ling Chua; Min Ting Alicia See; Helena Legio-Quigley; Daryl Jones; Augustine Tee; Sok Ying Liaw Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 2.038