Conectar
Patient mental state deterioration presents significant challenges in acute hospital settings, affecting outcomes, increasing reliance on restrictive interventions, and placing additional strain on healthcare staff. Despite its prevalence, consensus on best practice remains limited. The De-escalation, Intervention, Early Response Team (DIvERT) is a pilot rapid response system introduced to improve early identification, enable timely interventions, reduce crisis incidents, and support ward staff in caring for patients with mental state deterioration.
A realist evaluation approach was used to test, validate, and refine program theories explaining DIvERT's mechanisms. Data collection included a cross-sectional survey, semi-structured interviews, field observations, a medical record audit, and incident report analysis. Analysis was guided by the Context-Mechanism-Outcome framework to explain DIvERT's effective functioning in responding to patient deterioration.
DIvERT facilitated early intervention through multidisciplinary collaboration, though organisational factors such as staffing constraints, workload pressures, and inconsistent assessment practices influenced effectiveness. Key mechanisms included structured escalation pathways, clinical skills, staff training, and interprofessional collaboration. Challenges included limited after-hours availability, reflecting the constraints of a pilot initiative, underreporting of incidents, and hierarchical decision-making. While causation cannot be directly established, trends indicate DIvERT was associated with fewer Code Grey responses, particularly during initial episodes of mental state deterioration.
This realist evaluation highlights the value of structured escalation pathways, multidisciplinary collaboration, organisational support, and tailored training in managing mental state deterioration. Preliminary trends suggest DIvERT may enable more proactive and timely early intervention, whereas traditional reactive hospital emergency response for aggression (Code Grey) was more often linked to repeat incidents. Workforce constraints and inconsistent assessment limited effective functioning, underscoring the need for strengthened training, integration into workflows, and improved after-hours coverage to support scalability and long-term success.
This study demonstrates that a proactive rapid response model (DIvERT) can strengthen the recognition and management of mental state deterioration in acute hospital settings. By formalising escalation pathways, improving interdisciplinary collaboration, and tailoring training to staff needs, the model supports safer and more timely responses to patient deterioration. Embedding such approaches into organisational workflows has implications for patient safety, staff confidence, and system efficiency.
The study addressed the challenge of inconsistent and reactive responses to patient mental state deterioration, which are often reliant on crisis interventions such as Code Grey. DIvERT facilitated early intervention through structured escalation processes, improved interdisciplinary collaboration, and enhanced staff skills. However, organisational barriers such as workforce constraints, after-hours gaps, and inconsistent use of mental state deterioration assessment tools limited its effective functioning. Findings are directly relevant to clinicians in acute hospital settings (particularly nursing and allied health staff), hospital administrators responsible for patient safety and workforce planning, and policymakers overseeing standards for recognising and responding to acute deterioration. The results highlight where investment in training, structured escalation systems, and organisational support can reduce reliance on restrictive interventions and improve both patient and staff safety.
This evaluation adhered to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) II reporting standards for realist evaluations, as outlined in the EQUATOR Network guidelines.
This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.
Managing patients' mental state deterioration in acute hospital settings is a critical challenge, requiring prompt specialised intervention to mitigate adverse outcomes. Current responses vary widely across health systems. Integrating rapid response systems that incorporate mental health expertise offers a promising approach to reduce risks and adverse outcomes.
To evaluate how a response system manages patient mental state deterioration in acute hospital settings, focusing on the mechanisms driving system effectiveness, for whom it works and under what circumstances, using a realist-informed theory-testing approach with field observation.
We conducted non-participant field observations in one trauma and one surgical unit over 4 months to examine the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes shaping a mental state deterioration response system. Observations captured multidisciplinary interactions, escalation processes and decision-making. Structured field notes were thematically coded using a realist framework to refine program theories and identify key factors influencing timely intervention.
Twenty responses were observed, most in the trauma unit. The system worked best when bedside nurses escalated early signs of deterioration, prompting timely intervention. Multidisciplinary collaboration involving nurse unit managers, liaison psychiatry, doctors and allied health professionals activated mechanisms of integrated assessment and coordinated care, enabling both medical and mental health needs to be addressed. Competing medical acuity demands at times reduced system availability. Teleconferencing supported specialist input when in-person attendance was not possible, ensuring person-centred care.
System functioning depended on early risk communication by bedside nurses and proactive multidisciplinary collaboration. Organisational support and staff training are essential to address operational challenges. Findings provide evidence for strengthening response systems to deliver timely, comprehensive interventions that improve physical and mental health outcomes.
DIvERT (De-escalation, Intervention, Early, Response, Team) is a proactive rapid response model of care piloted to improve the management and outcomes of patients experiencing mental state deterioration in acute hospital settings. The model achieves this through structured escalation pathways, proactive interventions and coordinated multidisciplinary collaboration to integrate medical and mental health care. Strengthening organisational support and staff training further reduces reliance on restrictive practices and promotes safer, person-centred care.
What problem did the study address? Acute hospitals face persistent challenges in responding to patient mental state deterioration alongside medical acuity, with existing rapid response systems often insufficiently integrated with mental health expertise. What were the main findings? Field observations of the DIvERT model demonstrated that proactive integration of mental health expertise, supported by organisational investment in training, clear escalation protocols and multidisciplinary collaboration, enabled earlier intervention and more coordinated responses. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? These findings have implications for acute hospital services, informing system-level improvements to rapid response models that support patient safety, reduce adverse events and improve staff wellbeing.
This study adhered to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines. Specifically, reporting followed the RAMESES II (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards II) reporting standards, which provide criteria for transparent and rigorous reporting of realist evaluation methodology.
No patient or public contribution.
High quality handover is critical for patient safety and care continuity. Existing practice is based on a weak evidence base in which the patient voice is poorly captured. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes of importance to patients, families and carers regarding interventions to improve in-hospital handover between healthcare practitioners.
A rapid systematic review of qualitative literature was carried out after prospective registration with PROSPERO and was reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines.
The Ovid MEDLINE database was searched.
Qualitative or mixed-methods studies reporting patient, family or caregiver perspectives on in-hospital handovers were eligible for inclusion.
Synthesis was informed by the best-fit framework approach using a published taxonomy of handover-related outcomes and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. Outcomes were reported according to two distinct types of handover: bedside (patient-involved) and provider-focused (patient-uninvolved).
A total of 34 studies, including 1262 participants across a range of specialties and predominantly high-income settings, were analysed. 53 bedside and 31 provider-focused handover outcomes were identified according to four domains; adverse events, quality of patient care, quality of handover and patient/caregiver satisfaction. Bedside handover studies frequently reported outcomes relating to patient engagement and communication with healthcare staff. One study was carried out in a low income country; however, outcomes identified were broadly similar.
These findings expand the known outcomes for evaluating handover interventions and highlight the importance of prioritising the patient and public perspective in research. This work will contribute to developing a core outcome set for trials in surgical handover but can also be applied to handover practices for any other discipline within the hospital environment.
CRD42023493367.
FreshRSS 