Search

Background: As the COVID-19 pandemic began, frontline nurses experienced many emotions as they faced risks relevant to both patients (e.g., making errors resulting in patient harm) and themselves (e.g., becoming infected with COVID-19). Although emotions are often neglected in the patient safety literature, research in affective science suggests that emotions may significantly impact nurses’ perceptions of risk, which can have downstream consequences. Further, the use of chronic emotion regulation strategies that are known to differ in adaptability and effectiveness (i.e., emotional suppression, reappraisal) can impact risk perceptions. Objective: To investigate the relationship between nurses’ emotional experiences in response to the pandemic and their estimates of how likely they would be to experience adverse outcomes related to both patients and themselves within the next six months. Additionally, we investigated the extent to which the use of suppression and reappraisal processes to manage emotions are associated with these risk perceptions. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Online survey distributed via email to emergency nurses at eight hospitals in the northeastern United States during fall 2020. Participants: 132 emergency nurses (Mage = 37.05; 81.1% Female; 89.4% White). Methods: Nurses reported the extent to which they experienced a variety of positive (e.g., hope, optimism) and negative (e.g., fear, sadness) emotions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and reported their perceptions of risk to both patients and themselves. Nurses also completed the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, a measure of chronic tendencies to engage in emotional suppression and reappraisal. Immediately prior to providing data for this study, nurses completed an unrelated decision-making study. Results: Nurses’ negative emotions in response to COVID-19 were associated with greater perceptions of both patient safety risks (b = 0.31, p < .001) and personal risks (b = 0.34, p < .001). The relationships between positive emotions and risk perceptions were not statistically significant (all p values > 0.66). Greater chronic tendencies to suppress emotions uniquely predicted greater perceptions of patient safety risks (b = 2.91, p = .036) and personal risks (b = 2.87, p = .040) among nurses; however, no statistically significant relationships with reappraisal emerged (all p values > 0.16). Conclusions: Understanding factors that influence perceptions of risk are important, given that these perceptions can motivate behaviours that may adversely impact patient safety. Such an understanding is essential to inform the development of interventions to mitigate threats to patient safety that emerge from nurses’ negative emotional experiences and their use of different emotion regulation strategies. Tweetable abstract: Covid-related negative emotions and emotional suppression are associated with greater patient and personal risk perceptions among emergency nurses @lindamisbell @Nathan_Huff_1

Background: While rapid response systems have been widely implemented, their impact on patient outcomes remains unclear. Further understanding of their components—including medical emergency team triggers, medical emergency team member composition, additional roles in patient care beyond responding to medical emergency team events, and their involvement in “Do-Not-Resuscitate” order placement—may elucidate the relationship between rapid response systems and outcomes. Objective: To explore how recent studies have examined rapid response system components in the context of relevant adverse patient outcomes, such as in-hospital cardiac arrests and hospital mortality. Design: Scoping review. Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase were searched for articles published between November 2014 and June 2022. Studies mainly focused on rapid response systems and associations with in-hospital cardiac arrests were considered. The following were extracted for analysis: study design, location, sample size, participant characteristics, system characteristics (including medical emergency team member composition, additional system roles outside of medical emergency team events), medical emergency team triggers, in-hospital cardiac arrests, and hospital mortality. Results: Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria. While most studies described triggers used, few analyzed medical emergency team trigger associations with outcomes. Of those, medical emergency team triggers relating to respiratory abnormalities and use of multiple triggers to activate the medical emergency team were associated with adverse patient outcomes. Many studies described medical emergency team member composition, but the way composition was reported varied across studies. Of the seven studies with dedicated medical emergency team members, six found their systems were associated with decreased incidence of in-hospital cardiac arrests. Six of seven studies that described additional medical emergency team roles in educating staff in rapid response system use found their systems were associated with significant decreases in adverse patient outcomes. Four of five studies that described proactive rounding responsibilities reported found their systems were associated with significant decreases in adverse patient outcomes. Reporting of rapid response system involvement in “Do-Not-Resuscitate” order placement was variable across studies. Conclusions: Inconsistencies in describing rapid response system components and related data and outcomes highlights how these systems are complex to a degree not fully captured in existing literature. Further large-scale examination of these components across institutions is warranted. Development and use of robust and standardized metrics to track data related to rapid response system components and related outcomes are needed to optimize these systems and improve patient outcomes.