ObjectiveTo explore the causes of failure to activate the rapid response system (RRS). The organisation has a recognised incidence of staff failing to act when confronted with a deteriorating patient and leading to adverse outcomes.DesignA multi-method study using the following: a point prevalence survey to determine the incidence of abnormal simple bedside observations and activation of the rapid response team by clinical staff; a prospective audit of all patients experiencing a cardiac arrest, unplanned intensive care unit admission or death over an 8-week period; structured interviews of staff to explore cognitive and sociocultural barriers to activating the RRS.SettingSouthern Health is a comprehensive healthcare network with 570 adult in-patient beds across four metropolitan teaching hospitals in the south-eastern sector of Melbourne.MeasurementsFrequency of physiological instability and outcomes within the in-patient hospital population. Qualitative data from staff interviews were thematically coded.ResultsThe incidence of physiological instability in the acute adult population was 4.04%. Nearly half of these patients (42%) did not receive an appropriate clinical response from the staff, despite most (69.2%) recognising their patient met physiological criteria for activating the RRS, and being ‘quite’, or ‘very’ concerned about their patient (75.8%). Structured interviews with 91 staff members identified predominantly sociocultural reasons for failure to activate the RRS.ConclusionsDespite an organisational commitment to the RRS, clinical staff act on local cultural rules within the clinical environment that are usually not explicit. Better understanding of these informal rules may lead to more appropriate activation of the RRS.

This is the first study to report on research activity in hospital-based Australian physiotherapy departments. Few sites allocate staff to conduct or support research. Despite this, physiotherapy departments regularly publish and present research results. Future studies could investigate how hospital-based physiotherapy departments can optimize research culture and output.

BackgroundThe rapid response system (RRS) is a process of accessing help for health professionals when a patient under their care becomes severely ill. Recent studies and meta-analyses show a reduction in cardiac arrests by a one-third in hospitals that have introduced a rapid response team, although the effect on overall hospital mortality is less clear. It has been suggested that the difficulty in establishing the benefit of the RRS has been due to implementation difficulties and a reluctance of clinical staff to call for additional help. This assertion is supported by the observation that patients continue to have poor outcomes in our institution despite an established RRS being available. In many of these cases, the patient is often unstable for many hours or days without help being sought. These poor outcomes are often discovered in an ad hoc fashion, and the real numbers of patients who may benefit from the RRS is currently unknown. This study has been designed to answer three key questions to improve the RRS: estimate the scope of the problem in terms of numbers of patients requiring activation of the RRS; determine cognitive and socio-cultural barriers to calling the Rapid Response Team; and design and implement solutions to address the effectiveness of the RRS.MethodsThe extent of the problem will be addressed by establishing the incidence of patients who meet abnormal physiological criteria, as determined from a point prevalence investigation conducted across four hospitals. Follow-up review will determine if these patients subsequently require intensive care unit or critical care intervention. This study will be grounded in both cognitive and socio-cultural theoretical frameworks. The cognitive model of situation awareness will be used to determine psychological barriers to RRS activation, and socio-cultural models of interprofessional practice will be triangulated to inform further investigation. A multi-modal approach will be taken using reviews of clinical notes, structured interviews, and focus groups. Interventions will be designed using a human factors analysis approach. Ongoing surveillance of adverse outcomes and surveys of the safety climate in the clinical areas piloting the interventions will occur before and after implementation.

Aims To investigate whether thoracic exercises result in improved pain, range of movement and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following open heart surgery (OHS), and to evaluate patient perception of the role of thoracic exercises in recovery. Methods A single-blinded pilot trial was conducted in a tertiary public hospital in Australia. Thirty-eight participants who underwent OHS were randomly allocated to an experimental (Group 1, n=23), or control (Group 2, n=15) group. All participants were prescribed a twice-daily walking programme postoperatively. The experimental group also completed a progressive, individualised thoracic exercise programme. Baseline pre-operative measures of shoulder and thoracic range of movement, pain and HRQOL were repeated at 4 weeks following discharge and 3 months postoperatively. Participants also rated their perceptions of the role of exercise and its contribution to physical recovery. Findings At 4 weeks following discharge, the experimental group reported 1.7 cm on the visual analogue scale (VAS) less sternal pain (95% CI of median 2.8–0.0, P=0.03) than the control group. The experimental group reported a trend toward greater perception of the contribution of their physiotherapy programme than the control group (median difference 1.2 cm, 95% CI -2.1–-0.0, P=0.04). There were no other differences between the two groups. Conclusions Thoracic exercises following OHS may be effective in reducing sternal pain and warrant further investigation.

Background: Allied health comprises multiple professional groups including dietetics, medical radiation practitioners, occupational therapists, optometrists and psychologists. Different to medical and nursing, Allied health are often organized in discipline specific departments and allocate budgets within these to provide services to a range of clinical areas. Little is known of how managers of allied health go about allocating these resources, the factors they consider when making these decisions, and the sources of information they rely upon. The purpose of this study was to identify the key factors that allied health consider when making resource allocation decisions and the sources of information they are based upon. Methods: Four forums were conducted each consisting of case studies, a large group discussion and two hypothetical scenarios to elicit data. A thematic content analysis commenced during post-forum discussions of key factors by forum facilitators. These factors were then presented to an expert working party for further discussion and refinement. Transcripts were generated of all data recordings and a detailed thematic analysis was undertaken by one author to ensure coded data matched the initial thematic analysis. Results: Twelve factors affecting the decision-making of allied health managers and clinicians were identified. One of these factors was disendorsed by the expert working party. The 11 remaining factors can be considered to be key decision-making principles that should be consistently applied to resource allocation. These principles were clustered into three overarching themes of readiness, impact and appropriateness. Conclusion: Understanding these principles now means further research can be completed to more effectively integrate research evidence into health policy and service delivery, create partnerships among policy-makers, managers, service providers and researchers, and to provide support to answer difficult questions that policy-makers, managers and service providers face.