Rapid Response Team of Acute Conditions - Essay Example

? Difference between RRT of Acute Pain Conditions in NHS UK and Riyadh Military Hospital Differencebetween RRT of Acute Pain Conditions in NHS UK and Riyadh Military Hospital Introduction: National Health Services is a shared name of the health provision services around the globe. A very imperative part of this national service is to come up with developmental ideas for the need of rapid response to the emergency cases of acute pain. It is for this reason that many countries have come up with the idea of forming rapid response team in the hospitals to address the acute pain cases. The purpose of this paper is to provide in-depth comparison between the rapid response team of acute pain in Riyadh Military hospital and national health services of United Kingdom. The comparison has been conducted on the basis of policies being implemented in both the countries in terms of health care provision. Furthermore, the paper will also discuss the implication of SBAR model to address the rapid response for acute pain cases. The policies as studied within the context of UK hospitals are in the form of protocol directed by National health services (NHS) UK. The paper has been structured by providing in depth introduction to the rapid response team for acute conditions in national health services (NHS) of Saudi Arabia and United UK. Secondly, financial system section has also been added to understand the amount of revenue that is used to provide rapid response in acute pain situations. It should be noted that it is highly significant to create understanding with the advantages and disadvantages of programs being implemented in health provision sector. Health Policy for Rapid Response Team in Riyadh Military Hospital in Saudi Arabia: The policies for the rapid response team in Saudi Arabia have recently been addressed by the medical services. It has been suggested in the main protocol of the program that response team will be selected on the basis of certification. This is similar to the criteria of UK rapid response team (RRT). The only difference is that the implication has been noted absent at most cases. Many cases are still being noted in the context of hospitals in Saudi Arabia where patients die because of no address to the emergency calls (Essa 2012). It is expected from rapid response team to provide intervention in the lesser time frame. This is the basic policy that has been set for the rapid response team of Riyadh military hospital. As per the hospital’s policy maker, it is expected that the rapid response team will be able to implement all needed medical models for intervention purpose within five minutes time. Consideration of five minutes treatment means that the model implication for assessment of the patient is done along with the recommendation. If in any case, more time is being consumed then it should not be considered as a failure of RRT (Piza and Adelstien 2011). The criteria for setting five minutes assessment is because the members should be capable of managing more cases of emergency. The difference between any RRT with the traditional treatment team is in terms of minutes of assessment. The purpose of a rapid response team is to extract out the right cause from the situation of acute pain. If in case, more time is being taken by the team then the main motive becomes unaccomplished (Adams and Failano 2011). Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR): The rapid response team (RRT) at the Riyadh military hospital level recommends the usage of situation, background, assessment and recommendation (SBAR). The policies for the rapid response team (RRT) have made it evident that SBAR should be followed in order to diagnose students in the best possible manner (AMA 2012). The implication of SBAR in Riyadh military hospital is because it has proven a successful manner to communicate the patient’s condition by the rapid response team to primary care provider. SBAR was basically implemented at US navy hospitals as a major method of communication. As noted above, SBAR is an abbreviation of situation, background, assessment and recommendation. These are four important elements that can help in demonstrating the situation of a patient of acute pain. Rapid response team should consider these elements as important and note down the condition of patient. With the help of these sections, rapid response team can be able to jot down important points and organize the report for the primary professionals. This will help in lesser time consumption so that the treatment interventions take place in a shortest time period (Marshall, Kitto and Shearer 2011). Within the protocol of the rapid response team of Riyadh military hospital, SBAR has been used for quiet a long time now as it is the basic manner of providing patient’s information to one physical to another. This adds accuracy to the overall medication process. The application of model has been made mandatory in the Riyadh military hospital because it is able to fetch the most complex information in an organized manner (Madan and Rawdin 2010). According to the policy of Riyadh military hospital, rapid response team must provide a brief context to the patient’s condition by referring to the situation header of SBAR model. Followed by the situation, the team should be able to provide objectives within the background section. Thirdly, assessment should be undertaken which will allow other medical professionals to understand as to what conditions of acute pain have been diagnosed. Lastly, rapid response needs to provide recommended treatment plans for the patient who will not just ensure the assessment but also develop fast paced treatment criteria (Shannon and Coombs 2009). The reports that are published regarding acute pain cases of patients should also enclose the report of rapid response team intervention. This should be attached till the time when patient is actually recovering. This would allow the research and development department of Riyadh military hospital to estimate the effectiveness of raid response team. This makes it clear that the rapid response team needs to be highly professional in terms of provision of treatment. More recently, it has been suggested by the policy for rapid response team that the records of rapid response given to the patient must be enclosed with the detailed and permanent medical history (Mackintosh, Rainey and Sandall, Understanding how rapid response systems may improve safety for the acutely ill patient: learning from the frontline 2012). Follow-up of patients’ condition is also another important aspect that has been made mandatory in the policies of rapid response team. It should be noted by rapid response team that the primary doctor team of the hospitals should be explained well regarding the best suitable techniques to be applied when there is crucial behavioral outburst by the patient. Rapid response team members should be able to keep a check on the given plan for intervention. However, in many cases, these responsibilities are assigned to the nurses and doctors present at the Riyadh military hospital but rapid response team also need to stay engaged with these generalities (Hueckel 2008). Health Policy for Rapid Response of Team in NHS (United Kingdom): National health services (NHS) in United Kingdom have appointed the set up for providing rapid response to the illness in 1998. Special rapid response teams have been set up to ensure that the management of acute pain situations is being managed by large. The response rate has relatively increased over the past years which have enabled the health care service of United Kingdom to actually provide better services to the people. The acute pain diseases such as cancer have been considered as the top priority. The need of rapid response team (RRT) were also needed in the health service departments in UK because the nurses and medical professionals needed avid and quick support from teams who can assist them in managing unusual cases or cases in which the patient has been admitted in severity. The nurses and administrative professionals in the hospital setup of UK have stated that implementation of the RRT program must be done effectively and better than the previous years (Williams, Newman and Jones n.d.). NHS Barking and Dagenham is an area of London which has been focused by the health providing services. Susi Clarke has researched regarding the rapid response team in Barking Dagenham and evaluated that the rapid response team was necessary because of the poor health conditions of the residents of the area. The reason of taking this area under consideration was to overcome diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. This also involved cardiovascular diseases (Paul, Jain and Nallmothu 2010). The area has been under server action of obesity which has led to cardiovascular diseases. In order to maintain the health services in this area, it was highly significant to form rapid response team. It was because of this reason that the Barking and Dagenham was made a part of national health services (NHS) UK. The objective of this service is to provide high class rapid response to the patients at home. It should be noted that this area of NHS was especially aided with medical professionals who were registered. This team included registered users, physiotherapists and other occupational therapists to make the rapid response effective in UK (Clarke 2009). Another criterion of the rapid response team in NHS UK is to provide rapid response for patients at home with acute pain attacks. This criterion has been set in order to make sure that beds at the hospitals are kept free for patients who have cardiac pulmonary attacks. This ensures that the rapid response team (RRT) is available for home as well. It is for this purpose, NHS UK has included a number of medical professionals. These would include following: The policy of the National Health Service RRT clarifies that the medical professionals who will be hired as assistance would need to have either pediatric or adult advanced cardiac life support certification (Clarke 2009). This is very significant because the rapid response team will have o address cases of acute pain. It is quiet evident that the acute pain cases are vulnerable and decisions that should be taken by the RRT must be accurate (Mackintosh, Rainey and Sandall, Understanding how rapid response systems may improve safety for the acutely ill patient: learning from the frontline 2012). There is no space for confusion while making a list of treatment instructions. It is because of this reason that this certification is needed while hiring a medical professional in an RRT (Johal 2008). It will be not incorrect to state that the NHS UK policy adheres to the hiring of medical professionals who are expert with surgeries and have command over acute pain cases. This policy pointer has been marked as a very imperative clause which is also being practiced by hospitals who are appointing RRT for managing the acute pain situations (Hueckel 2008). Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation: Communication is a very important aspect between the patients and health care professionals to provide rapid response. For instance, cases where the patient is able to respond to the medical professionals then it is predicted that the treatment will be effective as the medical professionals will be able to diagnose the patient in a quick time. This would also reduced fallacies such as implication of any other treatment which is not suitable for the patient. This also involves language that is actually used by the patients and medical professionals (AMA 2012). Clarification and easy to understand should be used to make sure that effective communication takes place between the medical professional and the patient. There are a number of models that have been used in order to provide effective and rapid response to acute pain situations. Mental health supporter, registered nurses, technical instructors for accurate device management occupational therapists for undertaking quick SBAR treatments (Williams, Newman and Jones n.d.). Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR) is a model that is being implemented in the military hospitals for the purpose of provision of rapid response to acute pain situations. This criterion of assessment has been positively acclaimed by NHS around the world. SBAR is also considered as a sole manner of evaluating different problems being observed by the patients. The usage of SBAR in NHS UK is not in its original form. However, a natural extension to SBAR has been implemented in the national health services of UK. It is mostly referred to Ask-Tell-Ask way of communication (Thomsan, Force and Dodd 2007). The policy for consuming lesser time for implication of assessment model is similar in NHS UK and Riyadh military hospital. This denotes that the definition of rapid response team is to provide quick assessment and treatment to the patients within acute pain condition. The time duration for assessment and evaluation has to be no more than 5 five minutes as noted in the policy by Riyadh military hospital (Shannon and Coombs 2009). Advantages and Disadvantages: The underlying advantages of the rapid response allow the national health services of respective countries to handle the cases for emergency. This allows clear modification of health management systems. However, in the case of National Health Service (NHS) in Saudi Arabia is relatively weak. This is because a number of cases have been reported where the cases were mishandled. This section discuss abut the advantages and disadvantages of the National Health Service programs in both the countries (Piza and Adelstien 2011). In the context of national health services of United Kingdom and Riyadh military hospital, it becomes evident that RRT has many benefits. These benefits are not just in terms of development of health services but also in terms of finance. With the help of rapid response teams, it becomes easier to diagnose as to which patient needs to be sent to ICU (Thomsan, Force and Dodd 2007). This cuts a great deal of cost for hospitals as there are limited transfers made to the ICU. This is regarded as a considerable cut down on the finances. Rapid response teams are also involved in keeping a follow up on every patient. This reduced the duration of stays of patients at the hospitals (Mackintosh, Rainey and Sandall, Understanding how rapid response systems may improve safety for the acutely ill patient: learning from the frontline 2011). Talking about the Riyadh military hospital, it becomes visible that a great deal of cut down on finance was observed as the rapid response team was able to implement follow up on patients. These follow ups maintained the continuity of checking patients stay duration. In other words, it could be said that the stay of patients in the hospital became limited as follow up allowed medical professionals to know about the recovering condition of patients. This is the biggest advantage of RRT that have been observed in Riyadh military hospital (Johal 2008) Along with a number of advantages, it was noted that there are some of the disadvantages which were observed in terms of rapid response team. The biggest disadvantage of the rapid response team is when the team is trying to save one person who is undergoing an acute pain situation will prove as a noise for other patients resting. During night calls at Riyadh military hospital for managing patients with acute pain situation, it becomes quiet disturbing for other patients. It is due to the fact that bright lights are switched on and a number of response team members get involved in the process of providing treatment which is quiet problematic for other patients on rest. This disadvantage is not just evident in the case of Riyadh military hospital but also in the national health services of UK (NHS Foundation 2012). The implementation of rapid response team in the case of Saudi Arabia is noted to be absent in most cases. However, the policies are very certain but seemingly the medical services have been provided by apathy of medical professionals. There are many hospitals where the implementation of rapid response team is absent. This has resulted in a large number of beds being consumed. Also, it has been noted in the hospitals of Saudi Arabia that most of the patients who needed ICU treatment were not provided with it because these ICUs were already being used for other cases. This does not mean that there is a lack of intensive care units but mainly due to the fact that evaluation of patients is being wrongly done. These issues are not in the context of the Riyadh military hospital but other hospitals of Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, UK hospitals are making effective use of response teams because national health services (NHS) has published its charter which is to be implemented equally in all the hospitals (National Nurse 2011). As per evaluation of rapid response team of different hospitals in UK, it has been noted that different counties are keeping a record of the rapid response teams. They are making sure that policies are being followed as studied above. Similar policies have also been implemented by Riyadh military hospital which has relatively decreased the case of failed emergency treatment. Furthermore, it was noted that several cases were noted in the hospitals within the management of national health services (NHS) UK where the primary treatment team were waiting for reply from the rapid response team. It will not be incorrect to state that the qualification and level of expertise as asked for a rapid response team is seemingly higher or equivalent to the primary team of doctors and surgeons in the hospital. This fact has been considered as a plus point for the primary health care practitioners. It has been noted that primary medical professional rely on the rapid response system (Jones and DeVita 2011). In addition to the above noted advantages and disadvantages of the rapid response team, it can be said that there are no other emergency programs that could allow a better mechanism for diagnoses of patients. Rapid response teams in NHS UK and Riyadh military hospital is for sure beneficial as both contexts have shown reduction in cost of the hospitals and failed cases (Adams and Failano 2011). Comparison of Financial system: The difference noted in the financial systems of national health services in UK and that of Riyadh military hospital was in terms of allocation of budget. National health services in UK have divided the budget of rapid response team in terms of counties. Different counties can make use of the budget allocated by the national health services UK. On the other hand, Riyadh military hospital has made use of its own budgeting. There is no allocation of the budget in any other hospitals of Saudi Arabia. RRT in both contexts are being funded by government and external aid providers such as world health organization (WHO) (Litvak and Pronovost 2011). The financial systems vary in both the context of rapid response team. The major cost that is being noted within the context of rapid response teams is in terms of training of the members of rapid response team. This notes that the teams are at one end able to save cost by cutting down intensive care unit (ICU) and at the same time consuming money for training. Other cost that has been noted in this regard is in terms of technological advanced tools to keep the doctors stay on alert on call. At Riyadh military hospital, it is more convenient for the hospital to keep a check on the figures being used for the purpose of research. The performance of rapid response team is being analyzed at every interval (Molyneux and Shawn 2008). Conclusion: From the above in-depth analysis of the policies of national health services of UK and Riyadh military hospital for rapid response team, it comes to understanding that these teams are responsible for emergency treatmemt provision. With the help of rapid response teams, it is predicted that higher number of failed cases due to lack of emergency treatment can be reduced. There are number of factors that should be considered while preparing a rapid response team for the hospital such as the certification for their expertnesses, application of Situation, background, assessment and recommendation (SBAR) model, time for treatment of an acute pain case etc. These policies are not different in the medical services all around the world and so in the case of NHS UK and Riyadh military hospital. Considering the model of SBAR, it was first implemented in United States. The only difference is in terms of implementation of these policies in Riyadh military hospital and NHS UK. Furthermore, it was also evaluated throughout the paper that rapid response team in both the context have their disadvantages and advantages. The scope of rapid response team is limited to Riyadh military hospital as thorough implementation of these policies in other hospitals of Saudi Arabia is limited. On the other hand, NHS UK has published its charter that acknowledges that every hospital in United Kingdom should set and maintain their rapid response teams by following the policies. On evaluation, it was also noted that the implementation of SBAR model to report the peculiarities of patients was highly followed by NHS UK but in case of Riyadh military hospital, it is being followed in an indirect manner. Also, the polices for rapid response teams in NHS UK and Riyadh military hospital are different from each other on the basis of allocation of funds. Rapid response teams in both the context have a certain amount of funds but they are administered by different authorities. In a nut shell it can be said that the NHS UK has not limited the scope of rapid response team the military hospitals but have also given varied routes for private hospitals. List of References Adams, J. and Failano, R., 2011. Exploring Differences in Rapid Response Team (RRT) and Code Blue Occurrence Rates Within the Context of Nurse– Patient Linguistic Compatibility. Hispanic Health Care International, 9(4), pp.194-98. AMA, 2012. Improve staff communication. New York: American Medical Association. Clarke, S., 2009. Providing a community response to acute need. Practice Nursing, 20(3), pp.115-16. Essa, M., 2012. Rapid Response Team in Riyadh Military hospital. Riyadh: Riyadh Military Hospital. Hueckel, R., 2008. Beyond Rapid Response Teams: Instituting a “Rover Team” Improves the Management of At-Risk Patients, Facilitates Proactive Interventions and Improves Outcomes. Durham: Duke University Hospital. Johal, J., 2008. Staff Nurses’ Perceptions of Rapid Response Teams in Acute Care Hospitals. Ontario: Queen’s University. Jones, D. and DeVita, M., 2011. Rapid-Response Teams. T h e ne w e ngl a nd j our na l o f me dic i ne, pp.139-45. Litvak, E. and Pronovost, P., 2011. Rethinking Rapid Response Teams. The Journal of Americal Medical Association, pp.5-10. Mackintosh, N., Rainey, H. and Sandall, J., 2011. Understanding how rapid response systems may improve safety for the acutely ill patient: learning from the frontline. BMJ Quality and Safety, p.Online. Mackintosh, N., Rainey, H. and Sandall, J., 2012. Understanding how rapid response systems may improve safety for the acutely ill patient: learning from the frontline. BMJ, pp.135-44. Madan, J. and Rawdin, A., 2010. A Rapid-Response Economic Evaluation of the UK NHS Cancer Reform Strategy Breast Cancer Screening Program Extension via a Plausible Bounds Approach. Value in Health, 13(2), p.215–221. Marshall, S., Kitto, S. and Shearer, W., 2011. Why don’t hospital staff activate the rapid response system (RRS)? How frequently is it needed and can the process be improved? Implementation Science, 6(39), pp.1-7. Molyneux, J. and Shawn, M., 2008. In the .News: Do Rapid Response Teams Save Lives? Journal of American Medical Asscociation , 300(21), pp.2506-13. National Nurse, 2011. Rapid Response Teams: Another “Safety” Scheme? National Nurse, pp.14-19. NHS Foundation, 2012. NHS Foundation. [Online] Available at: Read More