Judicious use of the Critical Care Outreach Team: A QIP to reduce the inappropriate use of Early Warning Scores through targeted communication

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Early Warning Scores (EWS) use physiological parameters to create an aggregate score alerting medical teams to patient deterioration. Although vital tools for triggering referrals to critical care services in appropriate patients, the score does not take account of patients with persistently altered physiology or patients who are not deemed suitable for escalation to critical care. In these instances, EWS can result in the over-monitoring of patients and inappropriate contact of already strained critical care outreach services.1-2 Guidelines state that in such circumstances routine recording of EWS may be stopped.1 The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented demands on already overstretched resources in the critical care services,3 in particular on the Critical Care Outreach Team (CCOT). This makes their judicious use, and this QIP, ever more pertinent. Objective(s) In our trust, it was found that despite documented decisions not to escalate patients to critical care, these patients were still being monitored according to EWS, resulting in the inappropriate call out of the CCOT. We introduced measures to improve the proportion of inpatients with treatment limitations in place that had these limitations documented on their EWS charts, with the overall aim of reducing the number of inappropriate call-out of the CCOT. Method(s) We performed two snapshot audits on acute medical (control) and general medical wards (intervention) in a large district general hospital between the years 2018-2019. We obtained the percentage of patients with treatment limitations in place who had this documented on their EWS charts before and after improvement measures. Firstly, a paper prompt on the EWS chart was used in both control and intervention wards. Secondly, targeted communication interventions to general medical wards only. Targeted communication was not repeated after the second audit. A third snapshot audit was completed a year after improvement measures (2020) to identify whether improvements were sustained. Result(s) There was no significant difference in EWS amendment in the acute medical ward, where only a paper prompt was used. However, where targeted communication was used (general medical ward), there was a statistically significant improvement in review and amendment of EWS scores between the first and second audit in the intervention ward (37.2% vs 59.1%, p=0.017). However, this improvement was not sustained when the audit was repeated a year later. Conclusion(s) The proportion of inpatients with treatment escalation limitation decisions in place that have EWS amended can be improved by targeted communication, but paper prompts alone are not sufficient. However, these improvements are not sustained without repeated communication. The importance of appropriate amendment of EWS has two key benefits. Firstly, it reduces inappropriate and futile monitoring of end-of-life patients, allowing them to have a more dignified death. Secondly, instead of performing repeated observations (nursing staff) or patient reviews (CCOT) that will not alter management, nursing staff can better utilise their time in providing palliative support where appropriate (particularly considering current visiting restrictions), and the ever- stretched CCOT can be used more judiciously.