How actionable are staff behaviours specified in policy documents? A document analysis of protocols for managing deteriorating patients

BACKGROUND: To optimise care of deteriorating patients, healthcare organisations have implemented rapid response systems including an "afferent" and "efferent" limb. Afferent limb behaviours include monitoring vital signs and escalating care. To strengthen afferent limb behaviour and reduce adverse patient outcomes, the National Early Warning Score was implemented in the UK. There are no published reports of how National Early Warning Score guidance has translated into trust-level deteriorating patient policy and whether these documents provide clear, actionable statements guiding staff. AIM: To identify how deteriorating patient policy documents provide "actionable" behavioural instruction for staff, responsible for actioning the afferent limb of the rapid response system. DESIGN: A structured content analysis of a national guideline and local policies using a behaviour specification framework. METHODS: Local deteriorating patient policies were obtained. Statements of behaviour were extracted from policies; coded using a behaviour specification framework: Target, Action, Context, Timing and Actor and scored for specificity (1 = present, nonspecific; 2 = present, specific). Frequencies and proportions of statements containing elements of the Target, Action, Context, Timing and Actor framework were summarised descriptively. Reporting was guided by the COREQ checklist. RESULTS: There were more statements related to monitoring than escalation behaviour (65% vs 35%). Despite high levels of clear specification of the action (94%) and the target of the behaviour (74%), context, timing and actor were poorly specified (37%, 37% and 33%). CONCLUSION: Delay in escalating deteriorating patients is associated with adverse outcomes. Some delay could be addressed by writing local protocols with greater behavioural specificity, to facilitate actionability. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Numerous clinical staff are required for an effective response to patient deterioration. To mitigate role confusion, local policy writers should provide clear specification of the actor. As the behaviours are time-sensitive, clear specification of the time frame may increase actionability of policy statements for clinical staff

Urgent care centre redirection: evaluation of a nurse led intervention

Aim: Patient redirection can help reduce service demand by providing information about more appropriate services. There is, however, no evidence about the effect of nurse-led patient redirection in urgent care centre settings. The aim of this project was to develop and evaluate a nurse-led patient ‘self-care and redirection first’ intervention in an urgent care centre (UCC). Method: Adopting a prospective observational design, the intervention was delivered to an opportunity sample of patients who attended a south London hospital UCC, between June and July 2014, and evaluated through patient interviews five to ten days after initial attendance. Findings: 118 of the 1,710 people who attended the UCC participated in the intervention, of whom 81 (69%) were redirected to other services or home to self-care, and 37 were transferred to an emergency department. Of the 110 (93.2%) participants who completed the questionnaire, 97.2% were satisfied with the service. Only two accessed different services to those recommended, 72.2% (n=85) said they would not reattend a UCC for a similar condition. Conclusion: Treating minor ailments in a UCC is an inefficient use of resources. A nurse-led self-care and redirection intervention can help divert patients with minor ailments to more appropriate services. Further evaluation of the effect of the intervention on service demand and costs is required

Personal financial incentives in health promotion: where do they fit in an ethic of autonomy?

The research for this paper was part of the work of the Centre for the Study of Incentives in Health, supported by the Wellcome Trust, grant reference WT086031MF (Principal Investigators TM Marteau, RE Ashcroft, PH Dolan)

Intravenous magnesium sulfate for treating children with acute asthma in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Acute asthma in children can be life-threatening and must be treated promptly in the emergency setting. Intravenous magnesium sulfate is recommended by various guidelines for cases of acute asthma that have not responded to first-line treatment with bronchodilators and steroids. The treatment has recently been shown to reduce the need for hospital admission for adults compared with placebo, but it is unclear whether it is equally effective for children. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of intravenous magnesium sulfate (IV MgSO4) in children treated for acute asthma in the emergency department (ED). SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by searching the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register up to 23 February 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of children treated in the ED for exacerbations of asthma if they compared any dose of IV MgSO4 with placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the results of the search and independently extracted data from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. We resolved disagreements through discussion and contacted study authors in cases of missing data and other uncertainties relating to the studies.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios and continuous data as mean differences, both using fixed-effect models. We assessed each study for risk of bias and rated the quality of evidence for each outcome with GRADE and presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table. There was insufficient evidence to conduct the planned subgroup analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies (182 children) met the inclusion criteria, and four contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. The included studies were overall at low risk of bias, but our confidence in the evidence was generally low, mainly due to the small sample sizes. Treatment with IV MgSO4 reduced the odds of admission to hospital by 68% (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.74; children = 115; studies = 3; I(2) = 63%). This result was based on data from just three studies including 115 children. Meta-analysis for the secondary outcomes was extremely limited by paucity of data. We performed meta-analysis for the outcome 'return to the emergency department within 48 hours', which showed a very imprecise effect estimate that was not statistically significant (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.30; children = 85; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%). Side effects and adverse events were not consistently reported and meta-analysis was not possible, however few side effects or adverse events were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: IV MgSO4 may reduce the need for hospital admission in children presenting to the ED with moderate to severe exacerbations of asthma, but the evidence is extremely limited by the number and size of studies. Few side effects of the treatment were reported, but the data were extremely limited