Michael C McCrory1, Hanan A Aboumatar2, Elizabeth A Hunt3. 1. Pediatric Critical Care, Departments of Anesthesiology and Pediatrics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and mmccrory@wakehealth.edu. 2. Department of Medicine and Armstrong Institute for Safety and Quality, and. 3. Pediatric Critical Care, Departments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine and Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore perceptions of communication quality at pediatric rapid response events and to determine whether these perceptions differed between rapid response team (RRT) members (RRTm) and floor providers (FP). METHODS: This survey study was conducted of clinical providers involved in RRT events at a tertiary care children's hospital. Perceptions of RRT communication were assessed by using a 5-point Likert scale, and qualitative comments were collected. Responses were compared between RRTm (responder nurses and intensive care fellows) and FP (floor nurses and resident physicians). RESULTS: Survey response was 64% (18 of 28) for RRTm and 70% (194 of 278) for FP. RRTm gave lower ratings than FP for communication of: (1) the purpose of the call; (2) airway and breathing; (3) circulation; (4) background information; and (5) possible diagnosis and treatment. RRTm were more likely than FP to indicate that description of background information delayed communication of critical management problems ("often": RRTm, 7 of 17 [41%]; FP, 23 of 175 [13%]; "always": RRTm, 2 of 18 [12%]; FP, 19 of 175 [11%]; P=.001 for overall comparison). A structured approach for communication was generally supported, although less strongly among floor nurses. Themes from qualitative responses included role confusion, fractured room entry, and a dismissive attitude by RRTm. CONCLUSIONS: A disconnect in perceived quality of communication was observed between RRTm and FP at pediatric rapid response events. A structured approach with well-defined roles may improve communication quality.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore perceptions of communication quality at pediatric rapid response events and to determine whether these perceptions differed between rapid response team (RRT) members (RRTm) and floor providers (FP). METHODS: This survey study was conducted of clinical providers involved in RRT events at a tertiary care children's hospital. Perceptions of RRT communication were assessed by using a 5-point Likert scale, and qualitative comments were collected. Responses were compared between RRTm (responder nurses and intensive care fellows) and FP (floor nurses and resident physicians). RESULTS: Survey response was 64% (18 of 28) for RRTm and 70% (194 of 278) for FP. RRTm gave lower ratings than FP for communication of: (1) the purpose of the call; (2) airway and breathing; (3) circulation; (4) background information; and (5) possible diagnosis and treatment. RRTm were more likely than FP to indicate that description of background information delayed communication of critical management problems ("often": RRTm, 7 of 17 [41%]; FP, 23 of 175 [13%]; "always": RRTm, 2 of 18 [12%]; FP, 19 of 175 [11%]; P=.001 for overall comparison). A structured approach for communication was generally supported, although less strongly among floor nurses. Themes from qualitative responses included role confusion, fractured room entry, and a dismissive attitude by RRTm. CONCLUSIONS: A disconnect in perceived quality of communication was observed between RRTm and FP at pediatric rapid response events. A structured approach with well-defined roles may improve communication quality.