Dataset Information

How human factors affect escalation of care: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis of studies.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Failure to rescue is defined as mortality after complications during hospital care. Incidence ranges 10.9%-13.3% and several national reports such as National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcomes and Death and National Institute of Clinical Excellence CG 50 highlight failure to rescue as a significant problem for safe patient care.To avoid failure to rescue events, there must be successful escalation of care. Studies indicate that human factors such as situational awareness, team working, communication and a culture promoting safety contribute to avoidance of failure to rescue events. Understanding human factors is essential to developing work systems that mitigate barriers and facilitate prompt escalation of care. This qualitative evidence synthesis will identify and synthesise what is known about the human factors that affect escalation of care.

Methods and analysis

We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and CINAHL, between database inception and 2018, for studies describing human factors affecting failure to rescue and/or care escalation. A search strategy was developed by two researchers and a medical librarian. Only studies exploring in-hospital (ward) populations using qualitative data collection methods will be included. Screening will be conducted by two researchers. We are likely to undertake a thematic synthesis, using the Thomas and Harden framework. Selected studies will be assessed for quality, rigour and limitations. Two researchers will extract and thematically synthesise codes using a piloted data extraction tool to develop analytical themes.

Ethics and dissemination

The qualitative evidence synthesis will use available published literature and no ethical approval is required. This synthesis will be limited by the quality of studies, rigour and reproducibility of study findings. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, publicised at conferences and on social media.

Prospero registration number

CRD42018104745.

SUBMITTER: Ede J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6500321 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How human factors affect escalation of care: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis of studies.

Ede Jody J Westgate Verity V Petrinic Tatjana T Darbyshire Julie J Watkinson Peter J PJ

BMJ open 20190408 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Failure to rescue is defined as mortality after complications during hospital care. Incidence ranges 10.9%-13.3% and several national reports such as National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcomes and Death and National Institute of Clinical Excellence CG 50 highlight failure to rescue as a significant problem for safe patient care.To avoid failure to rescue events, there must be successful escalation of care. Studies indicate that human factors such as situational awar ...[more]

PMID: 30962234

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the introduction of rapid response systems and early warning scores, clinical deterioration that is not recognised or responded to early enough prevails in acute care areas. One intervention that aims to address this issue and that is gaining increased attention is patient- and family-initiated escalation of care schemes. Existing systematic review evidence to date has tended to focus on identifying the impact or effectiveness of these schemes in practice. However, they have not tended to focus on qualitative evidence to consider the experience of deterioration and the factors that may promote or hinder engagement with these schemes in the practice setting. This systematic review will address this gap. The aim of this review is to explore patients', relatives' and healthcare professionals' experiences of deterioration and their perceptions of the barriers or facilitators to patient and family-initiated escalation of care in acute adult hospital wards.MethodsWe will search Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO databases using free-text and MESH terms relating to deterioration, family-initiated rapid response, families, patients, healthcare staff, hospital and experiences. We will search grey literature and reference lists of included studies for further published and unpublished literature. All studies with a qualitative design or method will be included. Two reviewers will independently assess studies for eligibility, extract data and appraise the quality of included studies. Data will be synthesised using a thematic synthesis approach, and findings will be presented narratively.DiscussionPatient- and family-initiated escalation of care schemes have been developed and implemented in several countries including the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, but there is limited evidence regarding patients' or families' perceptions of deterioration or the barriers and facilitators to using these schemes in practice, particularly in acute adult areas. This systematic review will provide evidence for the development of a patient and family escalation of care scheme that can be tested in a feasibility study.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018106952.

Project description:IntroductionThere seems to be little information on interactional patterns of enabling and constraining factors contributing to HIV care engagement across systems and across time. Understanding these patterns from a (micro-meso-macro-exo) systems perspective can provide rich insights on relevant social networks affecting transgender populations. In this review, we will synthesise the wealth of literature on transgender persons' engagement in the HIV care continuum.Methods and analysisWe will perform a networked systems approach to qualitative evidence synthesis of relevant qualitative research data generated from primary qualitative, mixed-method and evaluation studies exploring HIV care engagement among diverse transgender populations. Studies not using qualitative methods and studies not published in English will be excluded from this review. Empirical studies will be identified via a search in major databases such as PubMed, Scopus, ERIC, Embase, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, PsychInfo and Social Services Abstract in January 2019. Two reviewers will independently screen the studies for inclusion, assess their quality and extract data. In case some of the system levels in the network are ill-covered by empirical studies, non-empirical studies will be considered for inclusion. The qualitative evidence synthesis includes a summary of descriptive data (first order), an exploration of relationships between system levels or their components (second order) and a structured summary of research evidence through narrative synthesis. The narrative synthesis will be extended with an overall social network analysis that visualises important nodes and links cutting across ecological systems.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required to conduct this review. Review findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic journals and a targeted information campaign towards organisations that work with our population of interest.Prospero registration numberCRD42018089956.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer affecting women worldwide. In the 1980s, it was found that the sexually transmitted disease human papillomavirus causes over 90% of all cervical cancer cases. Since that discovery, diagnostic technologies have been developed for the detection of human papillomavirus DNA in cervical samples. However, significant sociocultural and structural barriers remain. Considerable strides have taken place in recent years to address these barriers, such as the self-collection for human papillomavirus-based cervical screening method. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this review is to synthesize qualitative evidence around the self-collection method and identify strategies to increase acceptability and feasibility in different settings. This qualitative synthesis will be used to better understand how to conceptualize and implement more effective, accessible, and socially and culturally acceptable cervical screening programs and policies globally. METHODS:A systematic search will be conducted in Global Health, Cochrane, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ProQuest, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, EMCARE, Medline (OVID), Scopus, and Web of Science. Published and peer-reviewed articles will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen and assess the studies. The data will be coded and analyzed using a thematic synthesis process. The socioecological model will be used to organize emergent themes at the micro and macro levels. The results will be presented in narrative and tabular form. RESULTS:The article search and data extraction were completed in May 2020. The data were analyzed in June 2020. The review will be submitted for publication in Fall 2020. CONCLUSIONS:This review will present the global evidence of the perspectives and experiences of various key stakeholders and how these perspectives and experiences impact their decision-making process to perform or accept self-collection for human papillomavirus-based cervical screening. The review will provide guidance to implementation researchers as well as implications for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019109073; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=109073. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/21093.

Project description:Osteoarthritis is a highly prevalent and disabling condition. Primary care management of osteoarthritis is generally suboptimal despite evidence for several modestly effective interventions and the availability of high-quality clinical practice guidelines. This report describes a planned study to synthesise the views of primary care clinicians on the barriers and enablers to following recommended management of osteoarthritis, with the aim of providing new interpretations that may facilitate the uptake of recommended treatments, and in turn improve patient care.A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. 5 databases will be searched using key search terms for qualitative research, evidence-based practice, clinical practice guidelines, osteoarthritis, beliefs, perceptions, barriers, enablers and adherence. A priori inclusion/exclusion criteria include availability of data from primary care clinicians, reports on views regarding management of osteoarthritis, and studies using qualitative methods for both data collection and analysis. At least 2 independent reviewers will identify eligible reports, conduct a critical appraisal of study conduct, extract data and synthesise reported findings and interpretations. Synthesis will follow thematic analysis within a grounded theory framework of inductive coding and iterative theme identification. The reviewers plus co-authors will contribute to the meta-synthesis to find new themes and theories. The Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach will be used to determine a confidence profile of each finding from the meta-synthesis. The protocol has been registered on PROSPERO and is reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines.Ethical approval is not required. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will help to inform policy and practice and assist in the optimisation of management for people with osteoarthritis.CRD42015027543.

Project description:BackgroundEarly warning systems (EWSs) are used to assist clinical judgment in the detection of acute deterioration to avoid or reduce adverse events including unanticipated cardiopulmonary arrest, admission to the intensive care unit and death. Sometimes healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not trigger the alarm and escalate for help according to the EWS protocol and it is unclear why this is the case. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to answer the question 'why do HCPs fail to escalate care according to EWS protocols?' The findings will inform the update of the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) National Clinical Guideline No. 1 Irish National Early Warning System (INEWS).MethodsA systematic search of the published and grey literature was conducted (until February 2018). Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using standardised data extraction forms and quality appraisal tools. A thematic synthesis was conducted by two reviewers of the qualitative studies included and categorised into the barriers and facilitators of escalation. GRADE CERQual was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsEighteen studies incorporating a variety of HCPs across seven countries were included. The barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care according to EWS protocols were developed into five overarching themes: Governance, Rapid Response Team (RRT) Response, Professional Boundaries, Clinical Experience, and EWS parameters. Barriers to escalation included: Lack of Standardisation, Resources, Lack of accountability, RRT behaviours, Fear, Hierarchy, Increased Conflict, Over confidence, Lack of confidence, and Patient variability. Facilitators included: Accountability, Standardisation, Resources, RRT behaviours, Expertise, Additional support, License to escalate, Bridge across boundaries, Clinical confidence, empowerment, Clinical judgment, and a tool for detecting deterioration. These are all individual yet inter-related barriers and facilitators to escalation.ConclusionsThe findings of this qualitative evidence synthesis provide insight into the real world experience of HCPs when using EWSs. This in turn has the potential to inform policy-makers and HCPs as well as hospital management about emergency response system-related issues in practice and the changes needed to address barriers and facilitators and improve patient safety and quality of care.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementation. DESIGN:A qualitative evidence synthesis with a framework analysis. DATA SOURCES:Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Rx for Change databases until September 2018 were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:We included studies that primarily focused on identifying factors influencing de-implementation or the continuation of low-value care, and studies describing influencing factors related to the effect of a de-implementation strategy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:The factors were classified on five levels: individual provider, individual patient, social context, organisational context, economic/political context. RESULTS:We identified 333 factors in 81 articles. Factors related to the individual provider (n=131; 74% barriers, 17% facilitators, 9% both barrier/facilitator) were associated with their attitude (n=72; 55%), knowledge/skills (n=43; 33%), behaviour (n=11; 8%) and provider characteristics (n=5; 4%). Individual patient factors (n=58; 72% barriers, 9% facilitators, 19% both barrier/facilitator) were mainly related to knowledge (n=33; 56%) and attitude (n=13; 22%). Factors related to the social context (n=46; 41% barriers, 48% facilitators, 11% both barrier/facilitator) included mainly professional teams (n=23; 50%) and professional development (n=12; 26%). Frequent factors in the organisational context (n=67; 67% barriers, 25% facilitators, 8% both barrier/facilitator) were available resources (n=28; 41%) and organisational structures and work routines (n=24; 36%). Under the category of economic and political context (n=31; 71% barriers, 13% facilitators, 16% both barrier/facilitator), financial incentives were most common (n=27; 87%). CONCLUSIONS:This study provides in-depth insight into the factors within the different (sub)categories that are important in reducing low-value care. This can be used to identify barriers and facilitators in low-value care practices or to stimulate development of strategies that need further refinement. We conclude that multifaceted de-implementation strategies are often necessary for effective reduction of low-value care. Situation-specific knowledge of impeding or facilitating factors across all levels is important for designing tailored de-implementation strategies.

Dataset Information

How human factors affect escalation of care: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis of studies.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

How human factors affect escalation of care: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis of studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets