Search

The article describes patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) and its importance with reference to the Success Factors Facilitating Care during Escalation (SUFFICE) study. Topics include how the PPIE group was recruited, structure of each PPIE session, and SUFFICE study PPIE input and impact.

Aims Design Methods Results Conclusion Impact Statement Patient and Public Contribution To address knowledge gaps by (i) developing a theoretical understanding of escalation and (ii) identifying escalation success factors.Non‐participant observations were used to examine deteriorating patient escalation events.Escalation event data were collected by a researcher who shadowed clinical staff, between February 16th 2021 and March 17th 2022 from two National Health Service Trusts. Events were analysed using Framework Analysis. Escalation tasks were mapped using a Hierarchical Task Analysis diagram and data presented as percentages, frequency and 95% CI.A total of 38 observation sessions were conducted, totaling 105 h, during which 151 escalation events were captured. Half of these were not early warning score‐initiated and resulted from bleeding, infection, or chest pain. Four communication phenotypes were observed in the escalation events. The most common was Outcome Focused Escalation, where the referrer expected specific outcomes like blood cultures or antibiotic prescriptions. Informative Escalations were often used when a triggering patient's condition was of low clinical concern and ranked as the second most frequent escalation communication type. General Concern Escalations occurred when the referrer did not have predetermined expectations. Spontaneous Interaction Escalations were the least frequently observed, occurring opportunistically in communal workspaces.Half of the events were non‐triggering escalations and understanding these can inform the design of systems to support staff better to undertake them. Escalation is not homogenous and differing escalation communication phenotypes exist. Informative Escalations represent an organizational requirement to report triggering warning scores and a targeted reduction of these may be organizationally advantageous. Increasing the frequency of Spontaneous Escalations, through hospital designs, may also be beneficial.Our work highlights that a significant proportion of escalation workload occurs without a triggering early warning score and there is scope to better support these with designed systems. Further examination of reducing Informative and increasing Spontaneous Escalations is also warranted.Extensive PPIE was completed throughout the lifecycle of this study. PPIE members validated the research questions and overarching aims of the overall study. PPIE members contributed to the design of the study reviewed documents and the final data generated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vital signs assessment is critical for patient surveillance and safety. Research has found, however, that this assessment is often neglected in clinical practice. The reasons for this are unclear as few studies have explored this issue. Those studies that have are small, single site studies and found that culture and poor understanding are contributing factors., Aim: The aim was to explore the link between the clinical neglect of vital signs assessment and patient mortality and provide a better understanding of factors influencing vital signs assessment in the context of acute patient care. Coroners' reports represent an untapped source of information regarding shortfalls in vital signs assessment. Using a framework analysis, an audit was conducted of the Australian National Coronial Information System for cases where vital signs' assessment was mentioned in coronial reports., Results: Fifty-eight cases met the eligibility criteria, with deceased patients aged from 7 days to 93 years. Key themes related to absence of reassessment of vital signs, inappropriate delegation, passing responsibility to another staff member and not following policy., Conclusions: The findings reflect a combination of individual and institutional failings and suggest that vital signs assessment was not considered a priority aspect of care., Relevance to Clinical Practice: Vital signs assessment must be considered an essential aspect of clinical care in all patients. This important aspect of care should be emphasized across all domains of patient care., (© 2024 The Authors. Nursing in Critical Care published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Critical Care Nurses.)