Rapid response team nurses' attitudes and barriers to the rapid response system: A multicentre survey

5Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Despite wide implementation of rapid response teams (RRTs), no published data exist on RRT nurses' attitudes and barriers to the rapid response system (RRS). Methods: We piloted a 5-point Likert-type scale questionnaire among all Finnish university hospitals' RRT nurses with optional open-ended comments. The impact of more frequent RRT participation was further investigated. Results: The response rate was 46% (n = 176/379, 34%-93% between hospitals). The respondents median experience on a RRT was three years (0.8-5) and median participation was two (1˗5) RRT activations per month. Over 90% of the RRT nurses felt that RRS prevented cardiac arrests and improved patient safety. Nurses with five or more RRT activations/month believed their critical care skills had improved through these duties (94% vs 71%, P =.001), considered their RRT work meaningful (94% vs 76%, P =.005) and wanted to continue as RRT nurses (91% vs 74%, P =.015) more often than nurses with less than five RRT activations/month. In addition to the infrequent RRT participation, further negative experiences with RRS among the RRT nurses included feeling overworked (68%) or undercompensated (94%) for the RRT duties and conflicts between RRT and ward doctors (25%). Conclusion: RRT nurses consider their work important and believe it fosters improved critical care skills; these beliefs are emphasized among those with more frequent RRT participation. Infrequent RRT participation, feeling overworked and/or undercompensated and conflicts between RRT and ward doctors may present barriers for successful RRS among RRT nurses.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Loisa, E., Hoppu, S., Hytönen, S. M., & Tirkkonen, J. (2021). Rapid response team nurses’ attitudes and barriers to the rapid response system: A multicentre survey. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 65(5), 695–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13779

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free