Medical Emergency Teams (METs) are designed to deliver early expert assessment and treatment to hospitalised patients showing physiological deterioration. Despite MET availability, activation can be delayed until after prolonged deterioration. The protocol outlines a study to identify modifiable barriers and facilitators that influence timely MET activation among healthcare professionals caring for adult inpatients.
The protocol summarises hypothesised drivers of delayed activation including uncertainty about activation criteria, hierarchical and departmental culture effects, perceived pressure to manage deterioration without external support, fear of criticism, and concerns that activation might negatively reflect on professional competence.
This is a multicentre cross-sectional web survey conducted sequentially at four Swiss hospitals: two cantonal hospitals and two tertiary university hospitals. The survey is German-language and will be implemented in each site in sequence. The protocol specifies prespecified outcomes and a statistical analysis plan prior to pooled multicentre result inspection.
Eligible participants are healthcare professionals involved in the care of hospitalised adult patients in clinical areas where MET activation may occur. This includes physicians, nurses, nurses in training, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and speech and language therapists.
Excluded are staff who primarily work in paediatrics, emergency medicine, anaesthesia, intensive care, operating theatres, recovery areas, outpatient care, and members of the MET itself.
Participation is voluntary. Responses are confidential; they are not fully anonymous because participants may optionally provide contact details within the same survey record.
The German-language questionnaire was assembled from relevant items identified in published MET and rapid response system surveys. To ensure theoretical breadth and systematic coverage of behavioural determinants linked to MET activation, the investigators used the revised 14-domain Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF v2).
Two physician investigators independently mapped candidate items to the single TDF domain they judged most appropriate. Any disagreements in mapping were resolved by consensus. The investigative team judged all 14 TDF(v2) domains potentially relevant to the target behaviour of timely MET activation. Where domains were underrepresented in the candidate item pool, additional items were developed to fill gaps.
The final questionnaire was pilot tested with physicians and nurses to assess clarity and feasibility before broader deployment.
The protocol defines four prespecified primary outcomes. One is a proximal self-reported behavioural indicator: non-activation despite fulfilment of MET criteria. The other three primary outcomes are putative determinants of timely MET activation:
These outcomes were specified in the protocol and statistical analysis plan prior to inspection of pooled results.
Secondary outcomes are to be analysed descriptively and exploratorily. The protocol notes that no comparison by MET maturity will be undertaken.
The primary professional comparison specified in the protocol is physicians versus nurses. Ordinal logistic regression models will be used to analyse ordered outcome measures, adjusting for potential confounders including hospital, years of professional experience, clinical area, and previous personal MET activation.
Secondary outcomes will be summarised descriptively and explored without prespecified inferential comparisons unless noted in the statistical analysis plan.
The project was classified as research outside the scope of the Swiss Human Research Act. Site-specific ethics determinations and institutional endorsements will be reported in the final dissemination materials.
The authors confirm that relevant ethical guidelines were followed; necessary institutional approvals and participant consent were obtained per site determinations. Responses are confidential rather than fully anonymous because participants may provide optional contact details in the same survey record.
Because data collection had already been completed at one hospital at the time of registration, the authors describe registration as a prospective registration of the pooled analysis rather than a fully prospective preregistration.
The questionnaire, statistical analysis plan, and supplementary methodological materials will be publicly archived with the protocol. De-identified participant-level data will be shared only as permitted by ethics determinations, institutional policy, and disclosure-risk assessment.
Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentations, and aggregated feedback to participating hospitals.
The protocol reports competing interests for one author who has received research and educational grants and other industry-related support; details are reported in the source. The authors declare that they followed relevant ethical guidelines, obtained necessary approvals and participant consent, and adhered to reporting standards; these declarations are documented in the protocol.