Search

Introduction: Clinical teams struggle on general wards with acute management of deteriorating patients. We hypothesized that the Crisis Checklist App, a mobile application containing checklists tailored to crisis-management, can improve teamwork and acute care management.Methods: A before-and-after study was undertaken in high-fidelity simulation centres in the Netherlands, Denmark and United Kingdom. Clinical teams completed three scenarios with a deteriorating patient without checklists followed by three scenarios using the Crisis Checklist App. Teamwork performance as the primary outcome was assessed by the Mayo High Performance Teamwork scale. The secondary outcomes were the time required to complete all predefined safety-critical steps, percentage of omitted safety-critical steps, effects on other non-technical skills, and users' self-assessments. Linear mixed models and a non-parametric survival test were conducted to assess these outcomes.Results: 32 teams completed 188 scenarios. The Mayo High Performance Teamwork scale mean scores improved to 23.4 out of 32 (95% CI: 22.4-24.3) with the Crisis Checklist App compared to 21.4 (20.4-22.3) with local standard of care. The mean difference was 1.97 (1.34-2.6; p < 0.001). Teams that used the checklists were able to complete all safety-critical steps of a scenario in more simulations (40/95 vs 21/93 scenarios) and these steps were completed faster (stratified log-rank test χ2 = 8.0; p = 0.005). The self-assessments of the observers and users showed favourable effects after checklist usage for other non-technical skills including situational awareness, decision making, task management and communication.Conclusions: Implementation of a novel mobile crisis checklist application among clinical teams was associated in a simulated general ward setting with improved teamwork performance, and a higher and faster completion rate of predetermined safety-critical steps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Truly patient-centred care needs to be aligned with what patients consider important, and is highly desirable in the first 24 h of an acute admission, as many decisions are made during this period. However, there is limited knowledge on what matters most to patients in this phase of their hospital stay. The objective of this study was to identify what mattered most to patients in acute care and to assess the patient perspective as to whether their treating doctors were aware of this., Methods: This was a large-scale, qualitative, flash mob study, conducted simultaneously in sixty-six hospitals in seven countries, starting November 14th 2018, ending 50 h later. One thousand eight hundred fifty adults in the first 24 h of an acute medical admission were interviewed on what mattered most to them, why this mattered and whether they felt the treating doctor was aware of this., Results: The most reported answers to "what matters most (and why)?" were 'getting better or being in good health' (why: to be with family/friends or pick-up life again), 'getting home' (why: more comfortable at home or to take care of someone) and 'having a diagnosis' (why: to feel less anxious or insecure). Of all patients, 51.9% felt the treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them., Conclusions: The priorities for acutely admitted patients were ostensibly disease- and care-oriented and thus in line with the hospitals' own priorities. However, answers to why these were important were diverse, more personal, and often related to psychological well-being and relations. A large group of patients felt their treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. Explicitly asking patients what is important and why, could help healthcare professionals to get to know the person behind the patient, which is essential in delivering patient-centred care., Trial Registration: NTR (Netherlands Trial Register) NTR7538 .

Background: Timely and consistent recognition of a 'clinical crisis', a life threatening condition that demands immediate intervention, is essential to reduce 'failure to rescue' rates in general wards., Aim: To determine how different clinical caregivers define a 'clinical crisis' and how they respond to it., Design: An international survey., Methods: Clinicians working on general wards, intensive care units or emergency departments in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark were asked to review ten scenarios based on common real-life cases. Then they were asked to grade the urgency and severity of the scenario, their degree of concern, their estimate for the risk for death and indicate their preferred action for escalation. The primary outcome was the scenarios with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) ≥7 considered to be a 'clinical crisis'. Secondary outcomes included how often a rapid response system (RRS) was activated, and if this was influenced by the participant's professional role or experience. The data from all participants in all three countries was pooled for analysis., Results: A total of 150 clinicians participated in the survey. The highest percentage of clinicians that considered one of the three scenarios with a NEWS ≥7 as a 'clinical crisis' was 52%, while a RRS was activated by <50% of participants. Professional roles and job experience only had a minor influence on the recognition of a 'clinical crisis' and how it should be responded to., Conclusion: This international survey indicates that clinicians differ on what they consider to be a 'clinical crisis' and on how it should be managed. Even in cases with a markedly abnormal physiology (i.e. NEWS ≥7) many clinicians do not consider immediate activation of a RRS is required., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Physicians. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)