LAUSR

AIM To explore general ward nurses' attitudes and perceptions towards recognising and responding to clinical deterioration in a hospital with automated rapid response system activation. BACKGROUND There is growing interest in deploying automated clinical deterioration notification systems to reduce delayed or failed recognition and response to clinical deterioration of ward patients. However, little is known about its impact on ward nurses' perspectives and work patterns. DESIGN A mixed-methods study. METHODS Online survey of 168 registered nurses and individual interviews with 10 registered nurses in one acute hospital in Singapore. The study adhered to the STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies and the COREQ guidelines for qualitative studies. RESULTS Many nurses (38.1%) rarely performed patient assessments or observations other than vital signs assessment to assess for early signs of clinical deterioration. About 30% were worried about being criticised for calling the primary team doctors. Four themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: automated rapid response system activation as a safety net, being more cautious with vital signs monitoring, the NEWS2 alone is inadequate, and ward nurses as the 'middleman' between the intensive care unit outreach nurse and primary team doctors. CONCLUSIONS Although nurses value the automated rapid response system activation as a safety net to minimise delays in accessing urgent critical care resources, it does not address the sociocultural barriers inherent in escalation of care. Although the automated system led nurses to be more cautious with vital signs monitoring, it does not encourage them to perform comprehensive patient assessments to detect early signs of deterioration. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE Nurse education on assessing for clinical deterioration should focus on the use of broader patient assessment skills other than vital signs. Sociocultural barriers to escalation of care remain a key issue that needs to be addressed by hospital management. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION No patients, service users, care-givers or members of the public were involved in the study.