Martha's rule: applying a behaviour change framework to understand the potential of complementary roles of clinicians and patients in improving safety of patients deteriorating in hospital.

AIMS/BACKGROUND: Martha's rule stipulates the right of patients and their families to escalate care as a way to improve safety while in hospital. This article analyses the possible impact of the proposed policy through the lens of a behaviour change framework and explores new opportunities presented by the implementation of Martha's rule.. METHODS: A descriptive analysis was undertaken of interactions between patients, family, friends and clinicians during clinical deterioration in hospital. The capability-opportunity-motivation behaviour change framework was applied to understand reasons for failure to respond to deterioration. RESULTS: Care of deteriorating patients requires recording of vital signs, recognition of abnormalities, reporting through escalation and response by a competent clinician. Regarding the care of patients who deteriorate in hospital, healthcare professionals have capability and motivation to provide safe, high-quality care, but often lack the physical and social opportunity to report or respond through lack of time and peer pressure. Patients and family members have motivation and might have time to support safety systems. Martha's rule or similar arrangements allow healthcare organisations to create opportunities for patients and families to report and escalate care to experts in critical care when they recognise deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: The capability-opportunity-motivation behaviour change framework provides insights into the causes of failure to rescue in deteriorating patients and an argument for opportunities through escalation by patients and families through Martha's rule. This might reduce the number of system failures and enable safer care.

Bridging the gap between pragmatic intervention design and theory: using behavioural science tools to modify an existing quality improvement programme to implement "Sepsis Six".

BACKGROUND: Sepsis has a mortality rate of 40 %, which can be halved if the evidence-based "Sepsis Six" care bundle is implemented within 1 h. UK audit shows low implementation rates. Interventions to improve this have had minimal effects. Quality improvement programmes could be further developed by using theoretical frameworks (Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)) to modify existing interventions by identifying influences on clinical behaviour and selecting appropriate content. The aim of this study was to illustrate using this process to modify an intervention designed using plan-do-study-act (P-D-S-A) cycles that had achieved partial success in improving Sepsis Six implementation in one hospital. METHODS: Factors influencing implementation were investigated using the TDF to analyse interviews with 34 health professionals. The nursing team who developed and facilitated the intervention used the data to select modifications using the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy (v1) and the APEASE criteria: affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, safety and equity. RESULTS: Five themes were identified as influencing implementation and guided intervention modification. These were:(1) "knowing what to do and why" (TDF domains knowledge, social/professional role and identity); (2) "risks and benefits" (beliefs about consequences), e.g. fear of harming patients through fluid overload acting as a barrier to implementation versus belief in the bundle's effectiveness acting as a lever to implementation; (3) "working together" (social influences, social/professional role and identity), e.g. team collaboration acting as a lever versus doctor/nurse conflict acting as a barrier; (4) "empowerment and support" (beliefs about capabilities, social/professional role and identity, behavioural regulation, social influences), e.g. involving staff in intervention development acting as a lever versus lack of confidence to challenge colleagues' decisions not to implement acting as a barrier; (5) "staffing levels" (environmental context and resources), e.g. shortages of doctors at night preventing implementation. The modified intervention included six new BCTs and consisted of two additional components (Sepsis Six training for the Hospital at Night Co-ordinator; a partnership agreement endorsing engagement of all clinical staff and permitting collegial challenge) and modifications to two existing components (staff education sessions; documents and materials). CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates the feasibility of the TDF and BCT Taxonomy (v1) for developing an existing quality improvement intervention. The tools are compatible with the pragmatic P-D-S-A cycle approach generally used in quality improvement work.