Stephanie K Sprogis, Judy Currey, Daryl Jones, Julie Considine
{"title":"Exploring interdisciplinary communication pathways for escalating pre-medical emergency team deterioration: a mixed-methods study.","authors":"Stephanie K Sprogis, Judy Currey, Daryl Jones, Julie Considine","doi":"10.1071/AH22203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective To explore clinicians' use and perceptions of interdisciplinary communication pathways for escalating care within the pre-medical emergency team (pre-MET) tier of rapid response systems. Method A sequential mixed-methods study was conducted using observations and interviews. Participants were clinicians (nurses, allied health, doctors) caring for orthopaedic and general medicine patients at one hospital. Descriptive and thematic analyses were conducted. Results Escalation practices were observed for 13 of 27 pre-MET events. Leading communication methods for escalating pre-MET events were alphanumeric pagers (61.5%) and in-person discussions (30.8%). Seven escalated pre-MET events led to bedside pre-MET reviews by doctors. Clinician interviews (n = 29) culminated in two themes: challenges in escalation of care, and navigating information gaps. Clinicians reported deficiencies in communication methods for escalating care that hindered interdisciplinary communication and clinical decision-making pertaining to pre-MET deterioration. Conclusion Policy-defined escalation pathways were inconsistently utilised for pre-MET deterioration. Available communication methods for escalating pre-MET events inadequately fulfilled clinicians' needs. Variable perceptions of escalation pathways illuminated a lack of of a shared mental model about clinicians' roles and responsibilities. To optimise timely and appropriate management of patient deterioration, communication infrastructure and interdisciplinary collaboration must be enhanced.</p>","PeriodicalId":55425,"journal":{"name":"Australian Health Review","volume":"47 4","pages":"494-501"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Health Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH22203","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective To explore clinicians' use and perceptions of interdisciplinary communication pathways for escalating care within the pre-medical emergency team (pre-MET) tier of rapid response systems. Method A sequential mixed-methods study was conducted using observations and interviews. Participants were clinicians (nurses, allied health, doctors) caring for orthopaedic and general medicine patients at one hospital. Descriptive and thematic analyses were conducted. Results Escalation practices were observed for 13 of 27 pre-MET events. Leading communication methods for escalating pre-MET events were alphanumeric pagers (61.5%) and in-person discussions (30.8%). Seven escalated pre-MET events led to bedside pre-MET reviews by doctors. Clinician interviews (n = 29) culminated in two themes: challenges in escalation of care, and navigating information gaps. Clinicians reported deficiencies in communication methods for escalating care that hindered interdisciplinary communication and clinical decision-making pertaining to pre-MET deterioration. Conclusion Policy-defined escalation pathways were inconsistently utilised for pre-MET deterioration. Available communication methods for escalating pre-MET events inadequately fulfilled clinicians' needs. Variable perceptions of escalation pathways illuminated a lack of of a shared mental model about clinicians' roles and responsibilities. To optimise timely and appropriate management of patient deterioration, communication infrastructure and interdisciplinary collaboration must be enhanced.
期刊介绍:
Australian Health Review is an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes contributions on all aspects of health policy, management and governance; healthcare delivery systems; workforce; health financing; and other matters of interest to those working in health care. In addition to analyses and commentary, the journal publishes original research from practitioners – managers and clinicians – and reports of breakthrough projects that demonstrate better ways of delivering care. Australian Health Review explores major national and international health issues and questions, enabling health professionals to keep their fingers on the pulse of the nation’s health decisions and to know what the most influential commentators and decision makers are thinking.
Australian Health Review is a valuable resource for managers, policy makers and clinical staff in health organisations, including government departments, hospitals, community centres and aged-care facilities, as well as anyone with an interest in the health industry.
Australian Health Review is published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association.