4.0 Article

Perceptions of interactions between staff members calling, and those responding to, rapid response team activations for patient deterioration

Journal

AUSTRALIAN HEALTH REVIEW
Volume 40, Issue 4, Pages 364-370

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/AH15138

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. The aim of the present study was to investigate experiences of staff interactions and non-technical skills (NTS) at rapid response team (RRT) calls, and their association with repeat RRT calls. Methods. Mixed-methods surveys were conducted of RRT members and staff who activate the RRT (RRT users) for their perceptions and attitudes regarding the use of NTS during RRT calls. Responses within the survey were recorded as Likert items, ranked data and free comments. The latter were coded into nodes relating to one of four NTS domains: leadership, communication, cooperation and planning. Results. Two hundred and ninety-seven (32%) RRT users and 79 (73.8%) RRT members provided responses. Of the RRT user respondents, 76.5% had activated the RRT at some point. Deficits in NTS at RRT calls were revealed, with 36.9% of users not feeling involved during RRT calls and 24.7% of members perceiving that users were disinterested. Unresolved user clinical concerns, or persistence of RRT calling criteria, were reasons cited by 37.6% and 23%, respectively, of RRT users for reactivating an RRT to the same patient. Despite recollections of conflict at previous RRT calls, 92% of users would still reactivate the RRT. The most common theme in the free comments related to deficiencies in cooperation (52.9%), communication (28.6%) and leadership (14.3%). Conclusions. This survey of RRT users and members revealed problems with RRT users' and members' interactions at the time of an RRT call. Both users and members considered NTS to be important, but lacking. These findings support NTS training for RRT members and users.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available