Triggers and Interventions of Patients Who Require Medical Emergency Team Reviews: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Single Versus Multiple Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Medical emergency teams constitute part of the escalation protocol of early warning systems in many hospitals. The literature indicates that medical emergency teams may reduce hospital mortality and cardiac arrest. A greater understanding of pathways of patients who experience multiple medical emergency team reviews will inform clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To explore differences between patients who require a single medical emergency team review and those who require multiple reviews, and to identify any differences between patients who were reviewed only once during admission and patients who required multiple reviews. METHODS: Data for this retrospective cross-sectional review, including demographic data, call triggers, outcomes, and interventions, were routinely collected from January 2013 through December 2015. The study adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) collaborative's cross-sectional studies checklist (version 4). RESULTS: Of 54 787 admitted patients, 1274 (2%) required a call to a medical emergency team; of those, 260 patients (20%) needed multiple calls. Patients requiring multiple calls demonstrated higher mortality (odds ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.12-1.98]). A logistic regression model identified surgical patients and those receiving antibiotics and respiratory interventions at the first medical emergency team review as being more likely to require multiple reviews. Patients transferred to a higher level of care after the first review were less likely to require another review. CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring multiple medical emergency team reviews have higher mortality. Surgical patients have a higher risk of requiring multiple reviews. Hospitals need to include more details on surgical patients when auditing medical emergency team activation.

Barriers to effective, safe communication and workflow between nurses and non-consultant hospital doctors during out-of-hours.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the nature and type of communication and workflow arrangements between nurses and doctors out-of-hours (OOH). Effective communication and workflow arrangements between nurses and doctors are essential to minimize risk in hospital settings, particularly in the out-of-hour's period. Timely patient flow is a priority for all healthcare organizations and the quality of communication and workflow arrangements influences patient safety. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive design and data collection methods included focus groups and individual interviews. SETTING: A 500 bed tertiary referral acute hospital in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Junior and senior Non-Consultant Hospital Doctors, staff nurses and nurse managers. RESULTS: Both nurses and doctors acknowledged the importance of good interdisciplinary communication and collaborative working, in sustaining effective workflow and enabling a supportive working environment and patient safety. Indeed, issues of safety and missed care OOH were found to be primarily due to difficulties of communication and workflow. Medical workflow OOH is often dependent on cues and communication to/from nursing. However, communication systems and, in particular the bleep system, considered central to the process of communication between doctors and nurses OOH, can contribute to workflow challenges and increased staff stress. It was reported as commonplace for routine work, that should be completed during normal hours, to fall into OOH when resources were most limited, further compounding risk to patient safety. CONCLUSION: Enhancement of communication strategies between nurses and doctors has the potential to remove barriers to effective decision-making and patient flow.