Objective. To evaluate the effectiveness of training and institutionalizing teamwork behaviors, drawn from aviation crew resource management (CRM) programs, on emergency department (ED) staff organized into caregiver teams. Study Setting. Nine teaching and community hospital EDs. Study Design. A prospective multicenter evaluation using a quasi-experimental, untreated control group design with one pretest and two posttests of the Emergency Team Coordination Course TM (ETCC). The experimental group, comprised of 684 physicians, nurses, and technicians, received the ETCC and implemented formal teamwork structures and processes. Assessments occurred prior to training, and at intervals of four and eight months after training. Three outcome constructs were evaluated: team behavior, ED performance, and attitudes and opinions. Trained observers rated ED staff team behaviors and made observations of clinical errors, a measure of ED performance. Staff and patients in the EDs completed surveys measuring attitudes and opinions. Data Collection. Hospital EDs were the units of analysis for the seven outcome measures. Prior to aggregating data at the hospital level, scale properties of surveys and event-related observations were evaluated at the respondent or case level. Principal Findings. A statistically significant improvement in quality of team behaviors was shown between the experimental and control groups following training ( p 5 .012). Subjective workload was not affected by the intervention ( p 5 .668). The clinical error rate significantly decreased from 30.9 percent to 4.4 percent in the experimental group ( p 5 .039). In the experimental group, the ED staffs' attitudes toward teamwork increased ( p 5 .047) and staff assessments of institutional support showed a significant increase ( p 5 .040). Conclusion. Our findings point to the effectiveness of formal teamwork training for improving team behaviors, reducing errors, and improving staff attitudes among the ETCC-trained hospitals.
Background Personal protective equipment (PPE) helps protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from pathogens and prevents cross-contamination. PPE effectiveness is often undermined by inappropriate doffing methods. Our knowledge of how HCWs approach doffing PPE in practice is limited. In this qualitative study, we examine HCWs’ perspectives about doffing PPE. Methods Thirty participants at a Midwestern academic hospital were recruited and assigned to 1 of 3 doffing simulation scenarios: 3 mask designs (n = 10), 2 gown designs (n = 10), or 2 glove designs (n = 10). Participants were instructed to doff PPE as they would in routine practice. Their performances were video-recorded and reviewed with participants. Semistructured interviews about their doffing approaches were conducted and audio-recorded, then transcribed and thematically analyzed. Results Three overarching themes were identified in interviews: doffing strategies, cognitive processes, and barriers and facilitators. Doffing strategies included doffing safely (minimizing self-contamination) and doffing expediently (eg, ripping PPE off). Cognitive processes during doffing largely pertained to tracking contaminated PPE surfaces, examining PPE design cues (eg, straps), or improvising based on prior experience from training or similar PPE designs. Doffing barriers and facilitators typically related to PPE design, such as PPE fit (or lack of it) and fastener type. Some participants also described personal barriers (eg, glasses, long hair); however, some PPE designs helped mitigate these barriers. Conclusions Efforts to improve HCWs’ doffing performance need to address HCWs’ preferences for both safety and expediency when using PPE, which has implications for PPE design, training approaches, and hospital policies and procedures.
IMPORTANCE Rapid response teams (RRTs) are foundational to hospital response to deteriorating conditions of patients. However, little is known about differences in RRT organization and function across top-performing and non-top-performing hospitals for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) care. OBJECTIVE To evaluate differences in design and implementation of RRTs at top-performing and non-top-performing sites for survival of IHCA, which is known to be associated with hospital performance on IHCA incidence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A qualitative analysis was performed of data from semistructured interviews of 158 hospital staff members (nurses, physicians, administrators, and staff) during site visits to 9 hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation program and consistently ranked in the top, middle, and bottom quartiles for IHCA survival during 2012-2014. Site visits were conducted from April 19, 2016, to July 27, 2017. Data analysis was completed in January 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Semistructured in-depth interviews were performed and thematic analysis was conducted on strategies for IHCA prevention, including RRT roles and responsibilities. RESULTS Of the 158 participants, 72 were nurses (45.6%), 27 physicians (17.1%), 27 clinical staff (17.1%), and 32 administrators (20.3%). Between 12 and 30 people at each hospital participated in interviews. Differences in RRTs at top-performing and non-top-performing sites were found in the following 4 domains: team design and composition, RRT engagement in surveillance of at-risk patients, empowerment of bedside nurses to activate the RRT, and collaboration with bedside nurses during and after a rapid response. At top-performing hospitals, RRTs were typically staffed with dedicated team members without competing clinical responsibilities, who provided expertise to bedside nurses in managing patients who were at risk for deterioration, and collaborated with nurses during and after a rapid response. Bedside nurses were empowered to activate RRTs based on their judgment and experience without fear of reprisal from physicians or hospital staff. In contrast, RRT members at non-top-performing hospitals had competing clinical responsibilities and were generally less engaged with bedside nurses. Nurses at non-top-performing hospitals reported concerns about potential consequences from activating the RRT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This qualitative study's findings suggest that top-performing hospitals feature RRTs with dedicated staff without competing clinical responsibilities, that work collaboratively with bedside nurses, and that can be activated without fear of reprisal. These findings provide unique insights into RRTs at hospitals with better IHCA outcomes.
Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) is a poorly understood condition with significant impact on quality of life. We aimed to better understand the lived experiences of patients with PASC, focusing on the impact of cognitive complaints (“brain fog”) and fatigue on (1) daily activities, (2) work/employment, and (3) interpersonal relationships. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 15 patients of a Midwestern academic hospital’s post-COVID-19 clinic. We audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews thematically using a combined deductive-inductive approach and collected participants’ characteristics from chart review. Participants frequently used descriptive and metaphorical language to describe symptoms that were relapsing-remitting and unpredictable. Fatigue and brain fog affected all domains and identified subthemes included symptoms’ synergistic effects, difficulty with multitasking, lack of support, poor self-perception, and fear of loss of income and employment. Personal relationships were affected with change of responsibilities, difficulty parenting, social isolation, and guilt due to the burdens placed on family. Furthermore, underlying social stigma contributed to negative emotions, which significantly affected emotional and mental health. Our findings highlight PASC’s negative impact on patients’ daily lives. Providers can better support COVID-19 survivors during their recovery by identifying their needs in a sensitive and timely manner.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.