Search

Background How quickly physicians respond to communications from bedside nurses is important for the delivery of safe inpatient care. Delays in physician responsiveness can impede care or contribute to patient harm. Understanding contributory factors to physician responsiveness can provide insights to promote timely physician response, possibly improving communication to ensure safe patient care. The purpose of this study was to describe the factors contributing to physician responsiveness to text or numeric pages, telephone calls and face- to- face messages delivered by nurses on adult general care units. Methods Using a qualitative design, we collected data through observation, shadowing, interviews and focus groups of bedside registered nurses and physicians who worked in four hospitals in the Midwest USA. We analysed the data using inductive content analysis. Results A total of 155 physicians and nurses participated. Eighty- six nurses and 32 physicians participated in focus groups or individual interviews; we shadowed 37 physicians and nurses across all sites. Two major inter- related themes emerged, message and non- message related factors. Message- related factors included the medium nurses used to convey messages, physician preference for notification via one communication medium over another and the clarity of the message, all of which could cause confusion and thus a delayed response. Non- message related factors included trust and interpersonal relationships, and different perspectives between nurses and physicians on the same clinical issue that affected perceptions of urgency, and contributed to delays in responsiveness. Conclusions Physician responsiveness to communications from bedside nurses depends on a complex combination of factors related to the message itself and non- message related factors. How quickly physicians respond is a multifactorial phenomenon, and strategies to promote a timely response within the context of a given situation must be directed to both groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) provide reliable intravenous access for delivery of parenteral therapy. Yet, little is known about PICC care practices or how they vary across hospitals. We compared PICC-related processes across hospitals with different insertion delivery models. Methods We used a descriptive qualitative methodology and a naturalist philosophy, with site visits to conduct semistructured interviews completed between August 2018 and January 2019. Study sites included five Veterans Affairs Medical Centres, two with vascular access teams (VATs), two with PICC insertion primarily by interventional radiology (IR) and one without on-site PICC insertion capability. Interview participants were healthcare personnel (n=56), including physicians, bedside and vascular access nurses, and IR clinicians. Data collection focused on four PICC domains: use and decision-making process, insertion, in-hospital management and patient discharge education. We used rapid analysis and a summary matrix to compare practices across sites within each domain. Results Our findings highlight the benefits of dedicated VATs across all PICC-related process domains, including implementation of criteria to guide PICC placement decisions, timely PICC insertion, more robust management practices and well-defined patient discharge education. We also found areas with potential for improvement, such as clinician awareness of PICC appropriateness criteria and alternative devices, deployment of VATs and patient discharge education. Conclusion Vascular access nurses play critical roles in all aspects of PICC-related care. There is variation in PICC decision-making, care and maintenance, and patient education across hospitals. Quality and safety improvement opportunities to reduce this variation are highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Identifying characteristics associated with struggling healthcare organisations may help inform improvement. Thus, we systematically reviewed the literature to: (1) Identify organisational factors associated with struggling healthcare organisations and (2) Summarise these factors into actionable domains. Methods Systematic review of qualitative studies that evaluated organisational characteristics of healthcare organisations that were struggling as defined by below-average patient outcomes (eg, mortality) or quality of care metrics (eg, Patient Safety Indicators). Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science from database inception through February 8 2018. Qualitative data were analysed using framework-based synthesis and summarised into key domains. Study quality was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. Results Thirty studies (33 articles) from multiple countries and settings (eg, acute care, outpatient) with a diverse range of interviewees (eg, nurses, leadership, staff) were included in the final analysis. Five domains characterised struggling healthcare organisations: poor organisational culture (limited ownership, not collaborative, hierarchical, with disconnected leadership), inadequate infrastructure (limited quality improvement, staffing, information technology or resources), lack of a cohesive mission (mission conflicts with other missions, is externally motivated, poorly defined or promotes mediocrity), system shocks (ie, events such as leadership turnover, new electronic health record system or organisational scandals that detract from daily operations), and dysfunctional external relations with other hospitals, stakeholders, or governing bodies. Conclusions Struggling healthcare organisations share characteristics that may affect their ability to provide optimal care. Understanding and identifying these characteristics may provide a first step to helping low performers address organisational challenges to improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Daily interruption of sedation (DIS) has multiple proven benefits, but implementation is erratic. Past research on sedative interruption utilisation focused on individual clinicians, ignoring the role of organisations in shaping practice. The authors test the hypothesis that specific hospital organisational characteristics are associated with routine use of DIS. Design and setting: National, mailed survey to a stratified random sample of US hospitals in 2009. Respondents were the lead infection control professionals at each institution. Methods: Survey items enquired about DIS use, institutional structure, and organisational culture. Multivariable analysis was used to evaluate the independent association of these factors with DIS use. Results: A total of 386 hospitals formed our final analytic sample; the response rate was 69.4%. Hospitals ranged in size from 25 to 1359 beds. 26% of hospitals were associated with a medical school. Almost 80% reported regular use of DIS for ventilated patients. While 75.4% of hospitals reported having leadership focus on safety culture, only 42.7% reported that their staff were receptive to changes in practice. In a multivariable logistic regression model, structural characteristics such as size and academic affiliation were not associated with use of DIS. However, leadership emphasis on safety culture (p=0.04), staff receptivity to change (p=0.02) and involvement in an infection prevention collaborative (p=0.04) were significantly associated with regular DIS use. Conclusions: Several elements of hospital organisational culture were associated with regular use of DIS in US hospitals. These findings emphasise the importance of combining specific administrative approaches with strategies to encourage receptivity to change among bedside clinicians in order to successfully implement complex evidence-based practices in the intensive care setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]