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.

The 2-tier RRS was accessed by staff to assist with care of deteriorating patients in a large, tertiary hospital. High levels of satisfaction have been reported by clinical staff.

Rapid response teams (RRT), alternatively termed medical emergency teams, have become part of the clinical landscape in the majority of adult hospitals throughout Australia and New Zealand. These teams aim to bring critical care expertise to the bedside of clinically deteriorating patients residing in general hospital wards with the aim of preventing adverse outcomes, in particular death or cardiorespiratory arrests. While the concept of RRT has considerable face validity, there is little high quality evidence of their effectiveness and much uncertainty as to the optimal methods for identifying patients in need of RRT and calling the RRT (afferent limb) and how, and with whom, the RRT should then respond (efferent limb). Adverse unintended consequences of RRT systems and the opportunity costs involved in maintaining such systems have not been subject to study, amid concerns RRT may be compensating for other potentially remediable system of care failures. This article presents an overview of the current state of play of RRT in hospital practice as they pertain to the care of adult patients and identifies several issues around their implementation and evaluation that should be subject to further research.

Relatively few RRT activations are associated with acute resuscitation plans, and most interventions during RRT responses are low level. The high rate of post-RRT deaths and transfers to higher-level care units calls for the prospective identification of such patients in targeting appropriate care.

No abstract