IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v30y2021i5-6p803-818.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying barriers and facilitators to recognition and response to patient clinical deterioration by clinicians using a behaviour change approach: A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel M. Walker
  • Rhonda J. Boorman
  • Amanda Vaux
  • Marie Cooke
  • Leanne M. Aitken
  • Andrea P. Marshall

Abstract

Background Failure of clinicians to recognise and respond to patient clinical deterioration is associated with increased hospital mortality. Emergency response teams are implemented throughout hospitals to support direct‐care clinicians in managing patient deterioration, but patient clinical deterioration is often not identified or acted upon by clinicians in ward settings. To date, no studies have used an integrative theoretical framework in multiple sites to examine why clinicians’ delay identification and action on patients’ clinical deterioration. Aim To identify barriers and facilitators that influence clinicians’ absent or delayed response to patient clinical deterioration using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Methods The Theoretical Domains Framework guided: (a) semi‐structured interviews with clinicians, health consumers and family members undertaken at two sites; (b) deductive analyses of inductive themes to identify barriers and facilitators to optimal care. This study complied with the COREQ research guidelines. Findings Seven themes identified: (a) information transfer; (b) ownership of patient care; (c) confidence to respond; (d) knowledge and skills; (e) culture; (f) emotion; and (g) environmental context and resources. Discussion The Theoretical Domains Framework identified traditional social and professional hierarchies and limitations due to environmental contexts and resources as contributors to diminished interprofessional recognition and impediments to the development of effective relationships between professional groups. Communication processes were impacted by these restraints and further confounded by inadequate policy development and limited access to regular effective team‐based training. As a result, patient safety was compromised, and clinicians frustrated. Conclusions These results inform the development, implementation and evaluation of a behaviour change intervention and increase knowledge about barriers and facilitators to timely response to patient clinical deterioration. Relevance to clinical practice Results contribute to understanding of why clinicians delay responding to patient clinical deterioration and suggest key recommendations to identify and challenge traditional hierarchies and practices that prevent interdisciplinary collaboration and decision‐making.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel M. Walker & Rhonda J. Boorman & Amanda Vaux & Marie Cooke & Leanne M. Aitken & Andrea P. Marshall, 2021. "Identifying barriers and facilitators to recognition and response to patient clinical deterioration by clinicians using a behaviour change approach: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5-6), pages 803-818, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:30:y:2021:i:5-6:p:803-818
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15620
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15620
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15620?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kiri Hunter & Catherine Cook, 2018. "Role‐modelling and the hidden curriculum: New graduate nurses’ professional socialisation," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(15-16), pages 3157-3170, August.
    2. Mackintosh, Nicola & Humphrey, Charlotte & Sandall, Jane, 2014. "The habitus of ‘rescue’ and its significance for implementation of rapid response systems in acute health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 233-242.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Doug Elliott & Emily Allen & Sharon McKinley & Lin Perry & Christine Duffield & Margaret Fry & Robyn Gallagher & Rick Iedema & Michael Roche, 2016. "User acceptance of observation and response charts with a track and trigger system: a multisite staff survey," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(15-16), pages 2211-2222, August.
    2. Emily Allen & Doug Elliott & Debra Jackson, 2017. "Recognising and responding to in‐hospital clinical deterioration: An integrative review of interprofessional practice issues," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 3990-4012, December.
    3. Huang Ying Ching & Yiu Ting Fang & Wang Kwua Yun, 2022. "How New Nurses Experience Workplace Belonging: A Qualitative Study," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(3), pages 21582440221, September.
    4. Hafidza Baharum & Aniza Ismail & Zainudin Awang & Lisa McKenna & Roszita Ibrahim & Zainah Mohamed & Nor Haty Hassan, 2023. "Validating an Instrument for Measuring Newly Graduated Nurses’ Adaptation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-16, February.
    5. Duncan Smith & Mandeep Sekhon & Jill J. Francis & Leanne M. Aitken, 2019. "How actionable are staff behaviours specified in policy documents? A document analysis of protocols for managing deteriorating patients," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(21-22), pages 4139-4149, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:30:y:2021:i:5-6:p:803-818. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.