A multi-nudge-based behavioural insight into ward nurses' respiratory rate measurement: An observational study

Shunsuke Takaki,Koji Hara,Ayana Motoyama,Yuki Kawana,Makoto Kuroki,Shusaku Sasaki
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.17396
2024-08-09
Abstract:Aim: This study observed changes in respiratory rate measurement (RRM) and identified barriers and challenges in clinical practice that influence healthcare worker behaviour, aiming to improve RRM in a hospital setting. Design: An observational study was conducted. Methods: We observed and analysed changes in the behaviour of healthcare workers at a hospital where multi-nudges were introduced to improve RRM. Results: We checked respiration rate using electronic data and discovered that the original measurement rates were low. Measurement rates rapidly increased after posters were added. Barriers such as time constraints and measurement equipment were also noted. Conclusion: RRM was found to be effective in promoting behavioural economics in medical settings. The results show that incorporating behavioural science principles into medical interventions has the potential to positively change behaviour. Implications for the profession and/or patient care: By increasing nurses' awareness of respiratory rate measurement and addressing barriers to it, the measurement rate of respiratory rate can also increase, leading to more accurate patient evaluations and triage. Impact: WHAT PROBLEM DID THE STUDY ADDRESS?: The proportion of respiratory rate measurements leading to rapid response system (RRS) calls was low. WHAT WERE THE MAIN FINDINGS?: The study observed that a multi-nudge approach effectively changes the behaviour of ward nurses, resulting in enhanced quality of medical care. WHERE AND ON WHOM WILL THE RESEARCH HAVE AN IMPACT?: This research can serve as a valuable reference for leaders promoting healthcare quality projects, by offering a method to encourage behavioural change. Reporting method: This study complied with the EQUATOR guidelines and its reporting adheres to the STROBE checklist. Patient or public contribution: No patient or public contribution.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?