ArticleBMJ open2019
Assessing risks to paediatric patients: conversation analysis of situation awareness in huddle meetings in England.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyse the language and conversation used in huddles to gain a deeper understanding of exactly how huddles proceed in practice and to examine the methods by which staff members identify at-risk patients.
settingPaediatric wards in four English hospitals, which were part of a 12-hospital cohort participating in the Situation Awareness for Everyone programme. Wards varied by geographical region and type of hospital.
participantsPaediatric staff on wards in four English hospitals.
designEthnomethodology and conversation analysis of recorded safety huddles.
methodsThis study represents the first analysis of huddle interaction. All huddle meetings taking place on four wards across four different hospitals were audio recorded and transcribed. The research question examined was: how are staff identifying at-risk patients in huddles? The ethnomethodological conversation analytic approach was used to analyse the transcripts.
resultsHuddlers made use of categories that allowed them to efficiently identify patients for each other as needing increased attention. Lexicon included the use of 'no concerns', 'the one to watch', 'watcher' and 'acute concerns'. Huddlers used the meetings to go beyond standardised indicators of risk to identify relative risk and movement in patients towards deterioration, relative to the last huddle meeting and to their usual practices. An implicit category, termed here 'pre-concerns', was used by staff to identify such in-between states. Sequential analysis also highlighted the conversational rights that were held implicitly by staff in different clinical roles.
conclusionPractical implications and recommendations for huddlers are considered. These included that for increased situation awareness, it is recommended that all staff are active in the huddle conversation and not only the most senior team members.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.