The role of the medical emergency team in end-of-life care : a multicenter, prospective, observational study

Objective: To investigate the role of medical emergency teams in end-of-life care planning.

Design: One month prospective audit of medical emergency team calls.

Setting: Seven university-affiliated hospitals in Australia, Canada, and Sweden.

Patients: Five hundred eighteen patients who received a medical emergency team call over 1 month.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and Main Results: There were 652 medical emergency team calls in 518 patients, with multiple calls in 99 (19.1%) patients. There were 161 (31.1%) patients with limitations of medical therapy during the study period. The limitation of medical therapy was instituted in 105 (20.3%) and 56 (10.8%) patients before and after the medical emergency team call, respectively. In 78 patients who died with a limitation of medical therapy in place, the last medical emergency team review was on the day of death in 29.5% of patients, and within 2 days in another 28.2%. Compared with patients who did not have a limitation of medical therapy, those with a limitation of medical therapy were older (80 vs. 66 yrs; p < .001), less likely to be male (44.1% vs. 55.7%; p .014), more likely to be medical admissions (70.8% vs. 51.3%; p < .001), and less likely to be admitted from home (74.5% vs. 92.2%, p < .001). In addition, those with a limitation of medical therapy were less likely to be discharged home (22.4% vs. 63.6%; p < .001) and more likely to die in hospital (48.4% vs. 12.3%; p < .001). There was a trend for increased likelihood of calls associated with limitations of medical therapy to occur out of hours (51.0% vs. 43.8%, p .089).

Conclusions: Issues around end-of-life care and limitations of medical therapy arose in approximately one-third of calls, suggesting a mismatch between patient needs for end-of-life care and resources at participating hospitals. These calls frequently occur in elderly medical patients and out of hours. Many such patients do not return home, and half die in hospital. There is a need for improved advanced care planning in our hospitals, and to confirm our findings in other organizations.

Handover of patient information from the crisis assessment and treatment team to the inpatient psychiatric unit.

Handover, or the communication of patient information between clinicians, is a fundamental component of health care. Psychiatric settings are dynamic environments relying on timely and accurate communication to plan care and manage risk. Crisis assessment and treatment teams are the primary interface between community and mental health services in many Australian and international health services, facilitating access to assessment, treatment, and admission to hospital. No previous research has investigated the handover between crisis assessment and treatment teams and inpatient psychiatric units, despite the importance of handover to care planning. The aim of the present study was to identify the nature and types of information transferred during these handovers, and to explore how these guides initial care planning. An observational, exploratory study design was used. A 20-item handover observation tool was used to observe 19 occasions of handover. A prospective audit was undertaken on clinical documentation arising from the admission. Clinical information, including psychiatric history and mental state, were handed over consistently; however, information about consumer preferences was reported less consistently. The present study identified a lack of attention to consumer preferences at handover, despite the current focus on recovery-oriented models for mental health care, and the centrality of respecting consumer preferences within the recovery paradigm.

Patient and carer identified factors which contribute to safety incidents in primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Patients can have an important role in reducing harm in primary-care settings. Learning from patient experience and feedback could improve patient safety. Evidence that captures patients' views of the various contributory factors to creating safe primary care is largely absent. The aim of this study was to address this evidence gap. METHODS: Four focus groups and eight semistructured interviews were conducted with 34 patients and carers from south-east Australia. Participants were asked to describe their experiences of primary care. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and specific factors that contribute to safety incidents were identified in the analysis using the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF). Other factors emerging from the data were also ascertained and added to the analytical framework. RESULTS: Thirteen factors that contribute to safety incidents in primary care were ascertained. Five unique factors for the primary-care setting were discovered in conjunction with eight factors present in the YCFF from hospital settings. The five unique primary care contributing factors to safety incidents represented a range of levels within the primary-care system from local working conditions to the upstream organisational level and the external policy context. The 13 factors included communication, access, patient factors, external policy context, dignity and respect, primary-secondary interface, continuity of care, task performance, task characteristics, time in the consultation, safety culture, team factors and the physical environment. DISCUSSION: Patient and carer feedback of this type could help primary-care professionals better understand and identify potential safety concerns and make appropriate service improvements. The comprehensive range of factors identified provides the groundwork for developing tools that systematically capture the multiple contributory factors to patient safety.

Developing a primary care patient measure of safety (PC PMOS): a modified Delphi process and face validity testing

BACKGROUND: Patients are a valuable source of information about ways to prevent harm in primary care and are in a unique position to provide feedback about the factors that contribute to safety incidents. Unlike in the hospital setting, there are currently no tools that allow the systematic capture of this information from patients. The aim of this study was to develop a quantitative primary care patient measure of safety (PC PMOS). METHODS: A two-stage approach was undertaken to develop questionnaire domains and items. Stage 1 involved a modified Delphi process. An expert panel reached consensus on domains and items based on three sources of information (validated hospital PMOS, previous research conducted by our study team and literature on threats to patient safety). Stage 2 involved testing the face validity of the questionnaire developed during stage 1 with patients and primary care staff using the 'think aloud' method. Following this process, the questionnaire was revised accordingly. RESULTS: The PC PMOS was received positively by both patients and staff during face validity testing. Barriers to completion included the length, relevance and clarity of questions. The final PC PMOS consisted of 50 items across 15 domains. The contributory factors to safety incidents centred on communication, access to care, patient-related factors, organisation and care planning, task performance and information flow. DISCUSSION: This is the first tool specifically designed for primary care settings, which allows patients to provide feedback about factors contributing to potential safety incidents. The PC PMOS provides a way for primary care organisations to learn about safety from the patient perspective and make service improvements with the aim of reducing harm in this setting. Future research will explore the reliability and construct validity of the PC PMOS.