Aim and objectives: To describe the ideal doctors' shift handover process in a systematic fashion, and to identify tasks that should be performed, but are not consistently done. To understand the types of communication problems that may occur during the handover process, their causes, their likelihood of occurrence and their effect on patient safety. Method: Three studies were conducted in two, Scottish Acute Medical Units. A Hierarchical Task Analysis was performed and data was collected by means of interviews and focus groups. Observations of doctors' actual shift handover process were compared against the description of doctors' ideal handover process. To examine potential failures modes, a Healthcare Failure Modes and Effects Analysis was performed using focus group interviews. Results: The handover process entailed the pre-handover, the handover, and the post- handover phases. Multiple critical steps in the process were omitted by outgoing shift doctors. The pre-handover was particularly vulnerable to information omission, with over 50% of its critical tasks not being performed across a total of 62 observations. Nonetheless, most of these omissions were typically caught during the handover meeting, especially if incoming doctors participated in pre-handover activities. Post-handover activities involved prioritizing and delegating clinical tasks. However these were observed not to happen consistently due to multiple interruptions. Thirty-four failure modes were identified, with eight of them posing a significant risk to patient safety. The studies found that interruptions, patient workload, and a lack of standardised procedures were the biggest causes for information loss during the handover process. Conclusions: There are key critical tasks necessary for an ideal doctors' shift handover process. A simple, handover process checklist may ensure critical handover tasks have been achieved prior to any shift change. Interruptions, patient workload, peer trust, and a lack of standard operating procedures are areas that future handover research should examine.

M.Cur / To be able to nurse effectively in a critical care unit, a nurse needs to have extensive theoretical knowledge, excellent clinical skills and a certain degree of technological knowledge. The Diploma in Critical Care offered at higher educational institutions, in collaboration with private/public health delivery institutions within South Africa, aims to equip nurses with the necessary knowledge and clinical skills they need to work in this stressful and complex environment. Learners found that during the programme for the Diploma in Critical Care they were faced with a large amount of stress and demotivation due to reasons such as not being treated like an adult, the increased workload and the demands of the theoretical and clinical programmes. Some learners were faced with theoretical and clinical challenges and felt that they needed to be prepared for academic work at a higher educational institution, some found that they experienced emotional stress due to a lack of knowledge and the responsibility of being delegated to nurse critically ill patients. If a learner is unable to succeed in the programme the first time there are financial implications for the learner, the higher educational institution and the health delivery institution. It was previously thought that prior experience in a critical care unit was sufficient preparation to succeed in the critical care programme, but not all learners are exposed to the same learning opportunities prior to commencing with the programme and therefore learners do not enter the programme with the same knowledge base. There are also various factors that influence the learner during the programme. A private health group in Gauteng implemented the successful completion of a clinical skills workbook as part of the requirements for learners registering for the Diploma in Critical Care. The workbook focuses on the attainment of basic clinical skills that are required to be able to work in a critical care unit and not on basic theoretical knowledge. In view of the above it remains unclear whether the clinical skills workbook implemented by a specific private health care group is sufficient preparation for a learner prior to commencing with the critical care programme. The aim of this study is to determine whether the completion of a critical care pre-programme study guide will make a significant difference in the success of learners from a private health group in Gauteng who register for the Diploma in Critical Care at a specific higher educational institution. To achieve this goal the following objectives were stated: 1. Develop a pre-programme study guide. 2. Implement the pre-programme study guide. 3. Determine if the completion of a critical care pre-programme study guide makes a significant difference to the success of learners from a specific private health care delivery group during the Diploma in Medical & Surgical Nursing Science: Critical Care Nursing (General). To achieve the goal of the study, a quantitative, quasi-experimental and correlational design will be used. The study will be divided into two phases: phase one will involve the development of a pre-programme study guide for the critical care programme, based on a literature review. Phase two will include the implementation of the pre-programme study guide, and the research methodology for this phase will be an untreated control group with a pre-test and post-test. The pre-programme study guide made a significant difference to the cores of the experimental group in terms of the pre-test and pot-test scores, whilst the control groups scores neither improved nor deteriorated. There was no significant difference between the experimental and control group in terms of the pre-test, post-test, semester marks and exam marks. This could be due to the large standard of deviations that were obtained. The null hypothesis was accepted. The completion of the pre-programme study guide can be used as part of the requirements for learners registering for the Diploma in Critical Care and can help alleviate the stress and demotivation experienced by the learners during the Diploma in Critical Care.

Problem investigated: The activation and implementation of the Medical Emergency Team (MET) system. Procedures followed: The ability of the objective activation criteria to accurately identify patients at risk of three serious adverse events (cardiac arrest, unexpected death and unplanned intensive care admission) was assessed using a nested, matched case-control study. Sensitivity, specificity and Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC) analyses were performed. The MET implementation process was studied using two convenience sample surveys of the nursing staff from the general wards of twelve intervention hospitals. These surveys measured the awareness and understanding of the MET system, level of attendance at MET education sessions, knowledge of the activation criteria, level of intention to call the MET and overall attitude to the MET system, and the hospital level of support for change, hospital capability and hospital culture. The association of these measures with the intention to call the MET and the level of MET utilisation was assessed using nonparametric correlation. Results obtained: The respiratory rate was missing in 20% of subjects. Using listwise deletion, the set of objective activation criteria investigated predicted an adverse event within 24 hours with a sensitivity of 55.4% (50.6-60.0%) and specificity of 93.7% (91.2-95.6%). An analysis approach that assumed the missing values would not have resulted in MET activation provided a sensitivity of 50.4% (45.7- 55.2%) and specificity of 93.3% (90.8-95.3%). Alternative models with modified cut-off values provided different results. The MET system was implemented with variable success during the MERIT study. Knowledge and understanding of the system, hospital readiness, and a positive attitude were all significantly positively associated with MET system utilisation, while defensive hospital cultures were negatively associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Major conclusions: The objective activation criteria studied have acceptable accuracy, but modification of the criteria may be considered. A satisfactory trade-off between the identification of patients at risk and workload requirements may be difficult to achieve. Measures of effectiveness of the implementation process may be associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Trials of the MET system should ensure good knowledge and understanding of the system, particularly amongst nursing staff.

Problem investigated: The activation and implementation of the Medical Emergency Team (MET) system. Procedures followed: The ability of the objective activation criteria to accurately identify patients at risk of three serious adverse events (cardiac arrest, unexpected death and unplanned intensive care admission) was assessed using a nested, matched case-control study. Sensitivity, specificity and Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC) analyses were performed. The MET implementation process was studied using two convenience sample surveys of the nursing staff from the general wards of twelve intervention hospitals. These surveys measured the awareness and understanding of the MET system, level of attendance at MET education sessions, knowledge of the activation criteria, level of intention to call the MET and overall attitude to the MET system, and the hospital level of support for change, hospital capability and hospital culture. The association of these measures with the intention to call the MET and the level of MET utilisation was assessed using nonparametric correlation. Results obtained: The respiratory rate was missing in 20% of subjects. Using listwise deletion, the set of objective activation criteria investigated predicted an adverse event within 24 hours with a sensitivity of 55.4% (50.6-60.0%) and specificity of 93.7% (91.2-95.6%). An analysis approach that assumed the missing values would not have resulted in MET activation provided a sensitivity of 50.4% (45.7- 55.2%) and specificity of 93.3% (90.8-95.3%). Alternative models with modified cut-off values provided different results. The MET system was implemented with variable success during the MERIT study. Knowledge and understanding of the system, hospital readiness, and a positive attitude were all significantly positively associated with MET system utilisation, while defensive hospital cultures were negatively associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Major conclusions: The objective activation criteria studied have acceptable accuracy, but modification of the criteria may be considered. A satisfactory trade-off between the identification of patients at risk and workload requirements may be difficult to achieve. Measures of effectiveness of the implementation process may be associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Trials of the MET system should ensure good knowledge and understanding of the system, particularly amongst nursing staff.

Thesis (MNursing (Advanced Practice))--University of South Australia, 1995

Problem investigated: The activation and implementation of the Medical Emergency Team (MET) system. Procedures followed: The ability of the objective activation criteria to accurately identify patients at risk of three serious adverse events (cardiac arrest, unexpected death and unplanned intensive care admission) was assessed using a nested, matched case-control study. Sensitivity, specificity and Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC) analyses were performed. The MET implementation process was studied using two convenience sample surveys of the nursing staff from the general wards of twelve intervention hospitals. These surveys measured the awareness and understanding of the MET system, level of attendance at MET education sessions, knowledge of the activation criteria, level of intention to call the MET and overall attitude to the MET system, and the hospital level of support for change, hospital capability and hospital culture. The association of these measures with the intention to call the MET and the level of MET utilisation was assessed using nonparametric correlation. Results obtained: The respiratory rate was missing in 20% of subjects. Using listwise deletion, the set of objective activation criteria investigated predicted an adverse event within 24 hours with a sensitivity of 55.4% (50.6-60.0%) and specificity of 93.7% (91.2-95.6%). An analysis approach that assumed the missing values would not have resulted in MET activation provided a sensitivity of 50.4% (45.7- 55.2%) and specificity of 93.3% (90.8-95.3%). Alternative models with modified cut-off values provided different results. The MET system was implemented with variable success during the MERIT study. Knowledge and understanding of the system, hospital readiness, and a positive attitude were all significantly positively associated with MET system utilisation, while defensive hospital cultures were negatively associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Major conclusions: The objective activation criteria studied have acceptable accuracy, but modification of the criteria may be considered. A satisfactory trade-off between the identification of patients at risk and workload requirements may be difficult to achieve. Measures of effectiveness of the implementation process may be associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Trials of the MET system should ensure good knowledge and understanding of the system, particularly amongst nursing staff.

Problem investigated: The activation and implementation of the Medical Emergency Team (MET) system. Procedures followed: The ability of the objective activation criteria to accurately identify patients at risk of three serious adverse events (cardiac arrest, unexpected death and unplanned intensive care admission) was assessed using a nested, matched case-control study. Sensitivity, specificity and Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC) analyses were performed. The MET implementation process was studied using two convenience sample surveys of the nursing staff from the general wards of twelve intervention hospitals. These surveys measured the awareness and understanding of the MET system, level of attendance at MET education sessions, knowledge of the activation criteria, level of intention to call the MET and overall attitude to the MET system, and the hospital level of support for change, hospital capability and hospital culture. The association of these measures with the intention to call the MET and the level of MET utilisation was assessed using nonparametric correlation. Results obtained: The respiratory rate was missing in 20% of subjects. Using listwise deletion, the set of objective activation criteria investigated predicted an adverse event within 24 hours with a sensitivity of 55.4% (50.6-60.0%) and specificity of 93.7% (91.2-95.6%). An analysis approach that assumed the missing values would not have resulted in MET activation provided a sensitivity of 50.4% (45.7- 55.2%) and specificity of 93.3% (90.8-95.3%). Alternative models with modified cut-off values provided different results. The MET system was implemented with variable success during the MERIT study. Knowledge and understanding of the system, hospital readiness, and a positive attitude were all significantly positively associated with MET system utilisation, while defensive hospital cultures were negatively associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Major conclusions: The objective activation criteria studied have acceptable accuracy, but modification of the criteria may be considered. A satisfactory trade-off between the identification of patients at risk and workload requirements may be difficult to achieve. Measures of effectiveness of the implementation process may be associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Trials of the MET system should ensure good knowledge and understanding of the system, particularly amongst nursing staff.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of New South Wales, 1999. / Also available online.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Carleton University, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 196-215). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Canterbury, 2008. / Typescript (photocopy). "11 April 2008." Includes bibliographical references (p. 245-260).