A qualitative study exploring clinicians’ attitudes toward responding to and escalating care of deteriorating patients
Rattachement africain : au. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Recognition and escalation of the deteriorating patient is multifaceted and relevant to all clinicians involved. However, little evidence exists exploring how clinicians from different professions make decisions about early signs of clinical deterioration and how this affects their actions. The aim of this study was to explore interprofessional clinicians' and students' experiences of responding to and escalating care of deteriorating patients. A convenience sample of clinicians and students from acute hospital settings in regional Australia participated in focus groups. Participants were able to identify barriers, facilitators, and strategies for improvement during the recognition and escalation of the deteriorating patient. Four themes were detected throughout the 38 focus group discussions: a Standardized Approach, Workplace Culture and Teamwork, Confidence and Experience, and Communication. Although standardization of systems and processes supported clinician's recognition and escalation of the deteriorating patient, use and misuse of the systems by some participants were identified as barriers to seeking assistance. Positive workplace culture and teamwork were important to promoting the escalation of care. Participants identified that experience in recognizing and responding to deteriorating patients increased their confidence.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- A qualitative study exploring clinicians’ attitudes toward responding to and escalating care of deteriorating patients
- Date Crossref
- 25/09/2022
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.