ArticleInternal medicine journal2021
'Code-95' rapid response calls for patients under airborne precautions in the COVID-19-era: a cross-sectional survey of healthcare worker perceptions.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Hospital medical emergency teams and fears of COVID-19: the double-edged sword of pre-alerts.Internal medicine journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo allow better allocation of staff and resources, rapid response teams attending to acutely deteriorating or aggressive patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection were pre-warned with the announcement of 'Code-95' with calls.
aimTo assess healthcare worker (HCW) perspectives on pre-warning rapid response calls (RRC) with 'Code-95' in announcements when attending to deteriorating or aggressive patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection.
methodsDesign: prospective cross-sectional single-centre survey of HCW over a 3-week period.
settingtertiary public hospital.
participantsHCW caring for deteriorating or aggressive patients.
main outcome measuresthe primary outcome was to assess HCW perspectives in attending Code-95 calls. Secondary outcomes were to identify any differences related to craft group, age, experience or presence of comorbidities.
resultsA total of 297 responses was analysed; 86.7% of HCW (n = 257) attending Code-95 calls reported anxiety. Medical staff reported greater anxiety in comparison to nursing staff (93.8% vs 78.5%; P = 0.002). Efferent team reported higher anxiety in contrast to afferent team (92.6% vs 58.8%; P = 0.021). There was no significant difference in perceived anxiety based on age (≤40 vs >40 years of age), years of experience (≤5 vs >5 years), comorbidities or mental illness; 54% reported concerns about adequacy of infection-control policies and personal protective equipment; 45% were worried about inadequate training for responding to Code-95 calls.
conclusionsMost surveyed HCW supported Code-95 announcements pre-warning them of potential COVID-19 exposure when attending a RRC. However, the majority of HCW reported anxiety when attending these calls. Medical and efferent team HCW perceived greater anxiety compared to nursing and afferent team HCW. The Code-95 system to pre-warn rapid response teams may be a useful addition to protecting HCW from infectious diseases, although broader implementation will require greater resourcing, training and support.
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.