Doug Elliott1, Emily Allen1, Lin Perry2, Margaret Fry3, Christine Duffield1, Robyn Gallagher4, Rick Iedema5, Sharon McKinley6, Michael Roche1. 1. Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia South East Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Charles Perkins Centre & Sydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Agency for Clinical Innovation, NSW Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 6. Intensive Care, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimising clinical responses to deteriorating patients is an international indicator of acute healthcare quality. Observation charts incorporating track and trigger systems are an initiative to improve early identification and response to clinical deterioration. A suite of track and trigger 'Observation and Response Charts' were designed in Australia and initially tested in simulated environments. This paper reports initial clinical user experiences and views following implementation of these charts in adult general medical-surgical wards. METHODS: Across eight trial sites, 44 focus groups were conducted with 218 clinical ward staff, mostly nurses, who received training and had used the charts in routine clinical practice for the preceding 2-6 weeks. Transcripts of audio recordings were analysed for emergent themes using an inductive approach. FINDINGS: In this exploration of initial user experiences, key emergent themes were: tensions between vital sign 'ranges versus precision' to support decision making; using a standardised 'generalist chart in a range of specialist practice' areas; issues of 'clinical credibility', 'professional autonomy' and 'influences of doctors' when communicating abnormal signs; and 'permission and autonomy' when escalating care according to the protocol. Across themes, participants presented a range of positive, negative or mixed views. Benefits were identified despite charts not always being used up to their optimal design function. Participants reported tensions between chart objectives and clinical practices, revealing mismatches between design characteristics and human staff experiences. Overall, an initial view of 'increased activity/uncertain benefit' was uncovered. CONCLUSIONS: Findings particularly reinforced the significant influences of organisational work-based cultures, disciplinary boundaries and interdisciplinary communication on implementation of this new practice chart. Optimal use of all chart design characteristics will be possible when these broader cultural issues are addressed. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Optimising clinical responses to deteriorating patients is an international indicator of acute healthcare quality. Observation charts incorporating track and trigger systems are an initiative to improve early identification and response to clinical deterioration. A suite of track and trigger 'Observation and Response Charts' were designed in Australia and initially tested in simulated environments. This paper reports initial clinical user experiences and views following implementation of these charts in adult general medical-surgical wards. METHODS: Across eight trial sites, 44 focus groups were conducted with 218 clinical ward staff, mostly nurses, who received training and had used the charts in routine clinical practice for the preceding 2-6 weeks. Transcripts of audio recordings were analysed for emergent themes using an inductive approach. FINDINGS: In this exploration of initial user experiences, key emergent themes were: tensions between vital sign 'ranges versus precision' to support decision making; using a standardised 'generalist chart in a range of specialist practice' areas; issues of 'clinical credibility', 'professional autonomy' and 'influences of doctors' when communicating abnormal signs; and 'permission and autonomy' when escalating care according to the protocol. Across themes, participants presented a range of positive, negative or mixed views. Benefits were identified despite charts not always being used up to their optimal design function. Participants reported tensions between chart objectives and clinical practices, revealing mismatches between design characteristics and human staff experiences. Overall, an initial view of 'increased activity/uncertain benefit' was uncovered. CONCLUSIONS: Findings particularly reinforced the significant influences of organisational work-based cultures, disciplinary boundaries and interdisciplinary communication on implementation of this new practice chart. Optimal use of all chart design characteristics will be possible when these broader cultural issues are addressed. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Attitudes; Decision support, clinical; Human factors; Nurses; Qualitative research
Authors: Gerri Sefton; Steven Lane; Roger Killen; Stuart Black; Max Lyon; Pearl Ampah; Cathryn Sproule; Dominic Loren-Gosling; Caitlin Richards; Jean Spinty; Colette Holloway; Coral Davies; April Wilson; Chung Shen Chean; Bernie Carter; E D Carrol Journal: Comput Inform Nurs Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: James Cheshire; David Lissauer; Will Parry-Smith; Aurelio Tobias; Gary B Smith; Richard Isaacs; Vanora Hundley Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2020-12-30