Why don't hospital staff activate the rapid response system (RRS)? How frequently is it needed and can the process be improved?

Abstract Background The rapid response system (RRS) is a process of accessing help for health professionals when a patient under their care becomes severely ill. Recent studies and meta-analyses show a reduction in cardiac arrests by a one-third in hospitals that have introduced a rapid response team, although the effect on overall hospital mortality is less clear. It has been suggested that the difficulty in establishing the benefit of the RRS has been due to implementation difficulties and a reluctance of clinical staff to call for additional help. This assertion is supported by the observation that patients continue to have poor outcomes in our institution despite an established RRS being available. In many of these cases, the patient is often unstable for many hours or days without help being sought. These poor outcomes are often discovered in an ad hoc fashion, and the real numbers of patients who may benefit from the RRS is currently unknown. This study has been designed to answer three key questions to improve the RRS: estimate the scope of the problem in terms of numbers of patients requiring activation of the RRS; determine cognitive and socio-cultural barriers to calling the Rapid Response Team; and design and implement solutions to address the effectiveness of the RRS. Methods The extent of the problem will be addressed by establishing the incidence of patients who meet abnormal physiological criteria, as determined from a point prevalence investigation conducted across four hospitals. Follow-up review will determine if these patients subsequently require intensive care unit or critical care intervention. This study will be grounded in both cognitive and socio-cultural theoretical frameworks. The cognitive model of situation awareness will be used to determine psychological barriers to RRS activation, and socio-cultural models of interprofessional practice will be triangulated to inform further investigation. A multi-modal approach will be taken using reviews of clinical notes, structured interviews, and focus groups. Interventions will be designed using a human factors analysis approach. Ongoing surveillance of adverse outcomes and surveys of the safety climate in the clinical areas piloting the interventions will occur before and after implementation

Assessing the Quality of Clinical Teachers: A Systematic Review of Content and Quality of Questionnaires for Assessing Clinical Teachers

BACKGROUND: Learning in a clinical environment differs from formal educational settings and provides specific challenges for clinicians who are teachers. Instruments that reflect these challenges are needed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of clinical teachers. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the content, validity, and aims of questionnaires used to assess clinical teachers. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC from 1976 up to March 2010. REVIEW METHODS: The searches revealed 54 papers on 32 instruments. Data from these papers were documented by independent researchers, using a structured format that included content of the instrument, validation methods, aims of the instrument, and its setting. Results : Aspects covered by the instruments predominantly concerned the use of teaching strategies (included in 30 instruments), supporter role (29), role modeling (27), and feedback (26). Providing opportunities for clinical learning activities was included in 13 instruments. Most studies referred to literature on good clinical teaching, although they failed to provide a clear description of what constitutes a good clinical teacher. Instrument length varied from 1 to 58 items. Except for two instruments, all had to be completed by clerks/residents. Instruments served to provide formative feedback ( instruments) but were also used for resource allocation, promotion, and annual performance review (14 instruments). All but two studies reported on internal consistency and/or reliability; other aspects of validity were examined less frequently. CONCLUSIONS: No instrument covered all relevant aspects of clinical teaching comprehensively. Validation of the instruments was often limited to assessment of internal consistency and reliability. Available instruments for assessing clinical teachers should be used carefully, especially for consequential decisions. There is a need for more valid comprehensive instruments

How Reliable Are Assessments of Clinical Teaching?: A Review of the Published Instruments

BACKGROUND: Learner feedback is the primary method for evaluating clinical faculty, despite few existing standards for measuring learner assessments. OBJECTIVE: To review the published literature on instruments for evaluating clinical teachers and to summarize themes that will aid in developing universally appealing tools. DESIGN: Searching 5 electronic databases revealed over 330 articles. Excluded were reviews, editorials, and qualitative studies. Twenty-one articles describing instruments designed for evaluating clinical faculty by learners were found. Three investigators studied these papers and tabulated characteristics of the learning environments and validation methods. Salient themes among the evaluation studies were determined. MAIN RESULTS: Many studies combined evaluations from both outpatient and inpatient settings and some authors combined evaluations from different learner levels. Wide ranges in numbers of teachers, evaluators, evaluations, and scale items were observed. The most frequently encountered statistical methods were factor analysis and determining internal consistency reliability with Cronbach's α. Less common methods were the use of test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, and convergent validity between validated instruments. Fourteen domains of teaching were identified and the most frequently studied domains were interpersonal and clinical-teaching skills. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of teacher evaluations vary between educational settings and between different learner levels, indicating that future studies should utilize more narrowly defined study populations. A variety of validation methods including temporal stability, interrater reliability, and convergent validity should be considered. Finally, existing data support the validation of instruments comprised solely of interpersonal and clinical-teaching domains

Survival After In-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of immediate survival and survival to discharge for adult patients undergoing in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and to identify demographic and clinical variables associated with these outcomes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The MEDLARS database of the National Library of Medicine was searched. In addition, the authors' extensive personal files and the bibliography of each identified study were searched for further studies. Two sets of inclusion criteria were used, minimal (any study of adults undergoing in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and strict (included only patients from general ward and intensive care units, and adequately defined cardiopulmonary arrest and resuscitation). Each study was independently reviewed and abstracted in a nonblinded fashion by two reviewers. The data abstracted were compared, and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussion. For the subset of studies meeting the strict criteria, the overall rate of immediate survival was 40.7% and the rate of survival to discharge was 13.4%. The following variables were associated with failure to survive to discharge: sepsis on the day prior to resuscitation (odds ratio [OR] 31.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9, 515), metastatic cancer (OR 3.9; 95% CI 1.2, 12.6), dementia (OR 3.1; 95% CI 1.1, 8.8), African-American race (OR 2.8; 95% CI 1.4, 5.6), serum creatinine level at a cutpoint of 1.5 mg/dL (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.2, 3.8), cancer (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.2, 3.0), coronary artery disease (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.4, 0.8), and location of resuscitation in the intensive care unit (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.4, 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: When talking with patients, physicians can describe the overall likelihood of surviving discharge as 1 in 8 for patients who undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 1 in 3 for patients who survive cardiopulmonary resuscitation