‘Code‐95’ rapid response calls for patients under airborne precautions in the COVID‐19‐era: a cross‐sectional survey of healthcare worker perceptions
Open Access
- 22 April 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Internal Medicine Journal
- Vol. 51 (4) , 494-505
Abstract
Background To 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. Aim To 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. Methods Design: prospective cross‐sectional single‐centre survey of HCW over a 3‐week period. Setting: tertiary public hospital. Participants: HCW caring for deteriorating or aggressive patients. Main outcome measures: the 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. Results A 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. Conclusions Most 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.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Understanding and Addressing Sources of Anxiety Among Health Care Professionals During the COVID-19 PandemicJAMA, 2020
- The experiences of health-care providers during the COVID-19 crisis in China: a qualitative studyThe Lancet Global Health, 2020
- Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational studyThe Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 2020
- Mental health care for medical staff and affiliated healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemicEuropean Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care, 2020
- Factors Associated With Mental Health Outcomes Among Health Care Workers Exposed to Coronavirus Disease 2019JAMA Network Open, 2020
- Resource use, governance and case load of rapid response teams in Australia and New Zealand in 2014.2016
- The limitations in implementing and operating a rapid response systemInternal Medicine Journal, 2016
- Nurses’ Perceptions on Ebola Care in the United States, Part 2JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 2015
- Rapid Response Team composition, resourcing and calling criteria in AustraliaResuscitation, 2012
- Findings of the First Consensus Conference on Medical Emergency Teams*Critical Care Medicine, 2006