Background: Meta-analyses show that hospital rapid response systems (RRS) are associated with reduced rates of cardiorespiratory arrest and mortality. However, many RRS fail to provide appropriate outcomes. Thus an improved understanding of how to succeed with a RRS is crucial. By understanding the barriers and facilitators within the limbs of a RRS, these can be addressed.Objective: To explore the barriers and facilitators within the limbs of a RRS as described by health-care professionals working within the system. Methods:The electronic databases searched were: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, Cochrane, PsychInfo and Web of Science. Search terms were related to RRS and their facilitators and barriers. Studies were appraised guided by the CASP tool. Twenty-one qualitative studies were identified and subjected to content analysis.Results: Clear leadership, interprofessional trust and collaboration seems to be crucial for succeeding with a RRS. Clear protocols, feedback, continuous evaluation and interprofessional training were highlighted as facilitators. Reprimanding down the hierarchy, underestimating the importance of call-criteria, alarm fatigue and a lack of integration with other hospital systems were identified as barriers. Conclusion:To succeed with a RRS, the keys seem to lie in the administrative and quality improvement limbs. Clear leadership and continuous quality improvement provide the foundation for the continuing collaboration to manage deteriorating patients. Succeeding with a RRS is a never-ending process.

Objectives The capability of a hospital’s rapid response system (RRS) depends on various factors to reduce in-hospital cardiac arrests and mortality. Through system probing, this qualitative study targeted a more comprehensive understanding of how healthcare professionals manage the complexities of RRS in daily practice as well as identifying its challenges. Methods We observed RRS through in situ simulations in 2 wards and conducted the debriefings as focus group interviews. By arranging a separate focus group interview, we included the perspectives of intensive care unit personnel. Results Healthcare professionals appreciated the standardized use of the National Early Warning Score, when combined with clinical knowledge and experience, structured communication, and interprofessional collaboration. However, we identified salient challenges in RRS, for example, unwanted variation in recognition competence, and inconsistent routines in education and documentation. Furthermore, we found that a lack of interprofessional trust, different understandings of RRS protocol, and signs of low psychological safety in the wards disrupted collaboration. To help remedy identified challenges, healthcare professionals requested shared arenas for learning, such as in situ simulation training. Conclusions Through system probing, we described the inner workings of RRS and revealed the challenges that require more attention. Healthcare professionals depend on structured RRS education, training, and resources to operate such a system. In this study, they request interventions like in situ simulation training as an interprofessional educational arena to improve patient care. This is a relevant field for further research. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies Checklist was followed to ensure rigor in the study.

Background Hospitals worldwide have implemented Rapid Response Systems (RRS) to facilitate early recognition and prompt response by trained personnel to deteriorating patients. A key concept of this system is that it should prevent ‘events of omission’, including failure to monitor patients’ vital signs, delayed detection, and treatment of deterioration and delayed transfer to an intensive care unit. Time matters when a patient deteriorates, and several in-hospital challenges may prevent the RRS from functioning adequately. Therefore, we must understand and address barriers for timely and adequate responses in cases of patient deterioration. Thus, this study aimed to investigate whether implementing (2012) and developing (2016) an RRS was associated with an overall temporal improvement and to identify needs for further improvement by studying; patient monitoring, omission event occurrences, documentation of limitation of medical treatment, unexpected death, and in-hospital- and 30-day mortality rates. Methods We performed an interprofessional mortality review to study the trajectory of the last hospital stay of patients dying in the study wards in three time periods (P1, P2, P3) from 2010 to 2019. We used non-parametric tests to test for differences between the periods. We also studied overall temporal trends in in-hospital- and 30-day mortality rates. Results Fewer patients experienced omission events (P1: 40%, P2: 20%, P3: 11%, P = 0.01). The number of documented complete vital sign sets, median (Q1,Q3) P1: 0 (0,0), P2: 2 (1,2), P3: 4 (3,5), P = 0.01) and intensive care consultations in the wards ( P1: 12%, P2: 30%, P3: 33%, P = 0.007) increased. Limitations of medical treatment were documented earlier (median days from admission were P1: 8, P2: 8, P3: 3, P = 0.01). In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates decreased during this decade (rate ratios 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92–0.98) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95–0.99)). Conclusion The RRS implementation and development during the last decade was associated with reduced omission events, earlier documentation of limitation of medical treatments, and a temporal reduction in the in-hospital- and 30-day mortality rates in the study wards. The mortality review is a suitable method to evaluate an RRS and provide a foundation for further improvement. Trial registration Retrospectively registered.