Contextual factors influencing patients' experiences of acute deterioration and medical emergency team (MET) encounter: A grounded theory study.
Catherine Chung, Lisa McKenna, Simon J Cooper
PMID 35822295WHAT IT FOUND
Many patients surprised by acute deterioration judged the medical emergency team by what staff explained and how they were treated.
They linked painful procedures or poor communication with fear and distrust, and explanation and reassurance with feeling safe.
Key findings
01Patients' expectations and illness perception were central to how they understood and reacted to acute deterioration and a medical emergency team call.
02Patients described the team as good when staff explained, reassured and advocated, and as bad when staff were detached, rushed, delayed, disorganized or did not explain.
03Past illness and hospital experiences were linked with trust and fear, with prior medication errors or repeated deterioration connected to ongoing worry and questioning of care.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
These are patients' meanings, not measurements of how well a medical emergency team response worked. The theory came from 27 patients in Australian hospitals, so it may not fit other settings or healthcare systems. Patients who were confused, clinically unstable, obstetric, in mental health care, or with an active complaint were excluded, so the findings may not cover the most distressed or complex groups. Family members, nursing staff, medical staff and medical emergency team members were not interviewed, so the paper reports only the patient side of the encounter. Only two participants checked whether the theory reflected their meanings.
Declared interests
No specific funding was received, and the authors declared no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read these themes as evidence that a particular medical emergency team communication approach improves safety or outcomes. The study describes what patients said mattered. It did not test an intervention or measure clinical deterioration outcomes.