Reduction of unexpected serious adverse events after introducing medical emergency team

Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU: 2023

RATIONALE

Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care hospitals have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients.

OBJECTIVES

To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients.

PANEL DESIGN

The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

METHODS

We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs).

RESULTS

The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among unselected patients. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Effects of a Rapid Response Team on Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Despite the widespread adoption of the rapid response team (RRT) by many hospitals, questions remain regarding their effectiveness in improving several aspects of patient outcomes, such as hospital mortality, cardiopulmonary arrests, unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and length of stay (LOS).

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review to understand the rapid response team's (RRT) effect on patient outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and two trial registers. The studies published up to May 6, 2022, from the inception date of the databases were included. Two researchers filtered the title, abstract and full text. The Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool were used separately for randomized and non-randomized controlled trials for quality appraisal.

RESULTS

Sixty-one eligible studies were identified, four randomized controlled trials(RCTs), four non-randomized controlled trials, six interrupted time-series(ITS) design , and 47 pretest-posttest studies. A total of 52 studies reported hospital mortality, 51 studies reported cardiopulmonary arrests, 18 studies reported unplanned ICU admissions and ten studies reported LOS.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review found the variation in context and the type of RRT interventions restricts direct comparisons. The evidence for improving several aspects of patient outcomes was inconsistent, with most studies demonstrating that RRT positively impacts patient outcomes.

The associations between rapid response systems and their components with patient outcomes: A scoping review

Background

While rapid response systems have been widely implemented, their impact on patient outcomes remains unclear. Further understanding of their components-including medical emergency team triggers, medical emergency team member composition, additional roles in patient care beyond responding to medical emergency team events, and their involvement in "Do-Not-Resuscitate" order placement-may elucidate the relationship between rapid response systems and outcomes.

Objective

To explore how recent studies have examined rapid response system components in the context of relevant adverse patient outcomes, such as in-hospital cardiac arrests and hospital mortality.

Design

Scoping review.

Methods

PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase were searched for articles published between November 2014 and June 2022. Studies mainly focused on rapid response systems and associations with in-hospital cardiac arrests were considered. The following were extracted for analysis: study design, location, sample size, participant characteristics, system characteristics (including medical emergency team member composition, additional system roles outside of medical emergency team events), medical emergency team triggers, in-hospital cardiac arrests, and hospital mortality.

Results

Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria. While most studies described triggers used, few analyzed medical emergency team trigger associations with outcomes. Of those, medical emergency team triggers relating to respiratory abnormalities and use of multiple triggers to activate the medical emergency team were associated with adverse patient outcomes. Many studies described medical emergency team member composition, but the way composition was reported varied across studies. Of the seven studies with dedicated medical emergency team members, six found their systems were associated with decreased incidence of in-hospital cardiac arrests. Six of seven studies that described additional medical emergency team roles in educating staff in rapid response system use found their systems were associated with significant decreases in adverse patient outcomes. Four of five studies that described proactive rounding responsibilities reported found their systems were associated with significant decreases in adverse patient outcomes. Reporting of rapid response system involvement in "Do-Not-Resuscitate" order placement was variable across studies.

Conclusions

Inconsistencies in describing rapid response system components and related data and outcomes highlights how these systems are complex to a degree not fully captured in existing literature. Further large-scale examination of these components across institutions is warranted. Development and use of robust and standardized metrics to track data related to rapid response system components and related outcomes are needed to optimize these systems and improve patient outcomes.

Early warning systems and rapid response systems for the prevention of patient deterioration on acute adult hospital wards

BACKGROUND

Early warning systems (EWS) and rapid response systems (RRS) have been implemented internationally in acute hospitals to facilitate early recognition, referral and response to patient deterioration as a solution to address suboptimal ward-based care. EWS and RRS facilitate healthcare decision-making using checklists and provide structure to organisational practices through governance and clinical audit. However, it is unclear whether these systems improve patient outcomes. This is the first update of a previously published (2007) Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of EWS and RRS implementation on adults who deteriorate on acute hospital wards compared to people receiving hospital care without EWS and RRS in place.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trial registers on 28 March 2019. We subsequently ran a MEDLINE update on 15 May 2020 that identified no further studies. We checked references of included studies, conducted citation searching, and contacted experts and critical care organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised studies, controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) designs measuring our outcomes of interest following implementation of EWS and RRS in acute hospital wards compared to ward settings without EWS and RRS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using standard Cochrane and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group methods. Where possible, we standardised data to rates per 1000 admissions; and calculated risk differences and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Newcombe and Altman method. We reanalysed three CBA studies as ITS designs using segmented regression analysis with Newey-West autocorrelation adjusted standard errors with lag of order 1. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised trials (455,226 participants) and seven non-randomised studies (210,905 participants reported in three studies). All 11 studies implemented an intervention comprising an EWS and RRS conducted in high- or middle-income countries. Participants were admitted to 282 acute hospitals. We were unable to perform meta-analyses due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies. Randomised trials were assessed as high risk of bias due to lack of blinding participants and personnel across all studies. Risk of bias for non-randomised studies was critical (three studies) due to high risk of confounding and unclear risk of bias due to no reporting of deviation from protocol or serious (four studies) but not critical due to use of statistical methods to control for some but not all baseline confounders. Where possible we presented original study data which reported the adjusted relative effect given these were appropriately adjusted for design and participant characteristics. We compared outcomes of randomised and non-randomised studies reported them separately to determine which studies contributed to the overall certainty of evidence. We reported findings from key comparisons. Hospital mortality Randomised trials provided low-certainty evidence that an EWS and RRS intervention may result in little or no difference in hospital mortality (4 studies, 455,226 participants; results not pooled). The evidence on hospital mortality from three non-randomised studies was of very low certainty (210,905 participants). Composite outcome (unexpected cardiac arrests, unplanned ICU admissions and death) One randomised study showed that an EWS and RRS intervention probably results in no difference in this composite outcome (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.16; 364,094 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One non-randomised study suggests that implementation of an EWS and RRS intervention may slightly reduce this composite outcome (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99; 57,858 participants; low-certainty evidence). Unplanned ICU admissions Randomised trials provided low-certainty evidence that an EWS and RRS intervention may result in little or no difference in unplanned ICU admissions (3 studies, 452,434 participants; results not pooled). The evidence from one non-randomised study is of very low certainty (aOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; 57,858 participants). ICU readmissions No studies reported this outcome. Length of hospital stay Randomised trials provided low-certainty evidence that an EWS and RRS intervention may have little or no effect on hospital length of stay (2 studies, 21,417 participants; results not pooled). Adverse events (unexpected cardiac or respiratory arrest) Randomised trials provided low-certainty evidence that an EWS and RRS intervention may result in little or no difference in adverse events (3 studies, 452,434 participants; results not pooled). The evidence on adverse events from three non-randomised studies (210,905 participants) is very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the low-to-very low certainty evidence for all outcomes from non-randomised studies, we have drawn our conclusions from the randomised evidence. This evidence provides low-certainty evidence that EWS and RRS may lead to little or no difference in hospital mortality, unplanned ICU admissions, length of hospital stay or adverse events; and moderate-certainty evidence of little to no difference on composite outcome. The evidence from this review update highlights the diversity in outcome selection and poor methodological quality of most studies investigating EWS and RRS. As a result, no strong recommendations can be made regarding the effectiveness of EWS and RRS based on the evidence currently available. There is a need for development of a patient-informed core outcome set comprising clear and consistent definitions and recommendations for measurement as well as EWS and RRS interventions conforming to a standard to facilitate meaningful comparison and future meta-analyses.

Shortening of low-flow duration over time was associated with improved outcomes of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in in-hospital cardiac arrest

Introduction

Quality improvement in the administration of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) over time and its association with low-flow duration (LFD) and outcomes of cardiac arrest (CA) have been insufficiently investigated. In this study, we hypothesized that quality improvement in efforts to shorten the duration of initiating ECPR had decreased LFD over the last 15 years of experience at an academic tertiary care hospital, which in turn improved the outcomes of in-hospital CA (IHCA).

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective observational study of ECPR patients between January 2003 and December 2017. A rapid response system (RRS) and an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) program were initiated in 2011 and 2013. First, the association of LFD per minute with the 90-day mortality and neurological outcome was analyzed using multiple logistic regression analysis. Then, the temporal changes in LFD were investigated.

Results

Of 175 study subjects who received ECPR, 117 had IHCA. In the multivariate logistic regression, IHCA patients with shorter LFD experienced significantly increased 90-day survival and favorable neurological outcomes (LFD per minute, 90-day survival: odds ratio [OR] = 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.94–1.00, P = 0.032; 90-day favorable neurological outcome: OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.94–1.00, P = 0.049). In the study period, LFD significantly decreased over time (slope − 5.39 [min/3 years], P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

A shorter LFD was associated with increased 90-day survival and favorable neurological outcomes of IHCA patients who received ECPR. The quality improvement in administering ECPR over time, including the RRS program and the ECMO program, appeared to ameliorate clinical outcomes.

The impact of rapid response systems on mortality and cardiac arrests - A literature review

BACKGROUND

Rapid response systems were created to improve recognition of and response to deterioration of general ward patients.

AIM

This literature review aimed to evaluate the evidence on whether rapid response systems decrease in-hospital mortality and non-intensive care unit cardiac arrests.

METHOD

Six databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SCOPUS, Web of Science and PubMed) were systematically searched for primary studies published between 1st January 2014 and 31st October 2017, recruiting general ward patients, where the intervention involved introducing/maintaining a rapid response system, the comparison referred to a hospital setting without a rapid response system and the outcomes included mortality and cardiac arrests.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met eligibility criteria: one stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial, one concurrent cohort controlled study and thirteen historically controlled studies. Thirteen studies investigated mortality of which seven reported statistically significant findings in favour of rapid response systems. Thirteen studies investigated cardiac arrests, of which eight reported statistically significant findings in favour of rapid response systems.

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests that when the process of introducing/maintaining a rapid response system is successful and under certain favourable conditions, rapid response systems significantly decrease mortality and cardiac arrests.

How to facilitate a rapid response system in Japan: a promotion course based on TeamSTEPPS

Aim

In Japan, the number of facilities introducing a rapid response system (RRS) has been increasing. However, many institutions have had unsuccessful implementations. In order to implement RRS smoothly, a plan that meets the needs of each hospital is needed.

Methods

Rapid response system teams from each hospital, including a physician and staff in charge of medical safety, from the RRS online registry were invited to attend a workshop. The workshop aimed to develop and implement RRS. The course curriculum was based on the Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety (TeamSTEPPS) developed in the USA. Participating facilities were required to formulate an RRS introduction plan referring to Kotter’s 8‐step change model to overcome barriers in the implementation of RRS. The change in medical emergency team activations comparing the intervention and control group hospitals was compared.

Results

Sixteen institutions were eligible for this study. After participating in the workshop, there was a tendency toward more frequent activation of medical emergency teams in the intervention group (P = 0.075). According to a self‐evaluation from each facility, there is great difficulty in overcoming the 5th step of Kotter’s model (empower people to act the vision).

Conclusion

This step‐by‐step evaluation clearly identified a problem with implementation and provided measures for resolution corresponding to each facility. There was a major barrier to overcome the 5th step of Kotter’s model in leading change, which represents the attitude toward implementing RRS in institutions.

First report based on the online registry of a Japanese multicenter rapid response system: a descriptive study of 35 institutions in Japan

AIM

Although the concept of a rapid response system (RRS) has been gradually accepted in Japan, detailed information on the Japanese RRS is not well known. We provide the first report of the RRS epidemiological situation based on 4 years of RRS online registry data.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study. All patients registered between January 2014 and March 2018 were eligible for this study. Data related to RRS including physiological measurements were recorded. The mortality rates after rapid response team/medical emergency team (RRT/MET) intervention and after 30 days were recorded as outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 6,784 cases were registered at 35 facilities. Cancer (23.1%) was the most common existing comorbidity. Limitation of medical treatment was identified in 12.7% of the cases. The respiratory category was most frequently activated in 41.3% of the cases. Only two institutions had received more than 15 calls per 1,000 admissions. During RRT/MET intervention, death occurred in 3.6% and transfers to intensive care units occurred in 28.2% of the cases. After 30 days, the mortality rate was significantly higher in the night than in the day shift (30.7% versus 20.4%, respectively, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We report the first epidemiological study of RRS in Japan. Japanese facilities had a very low rate of RRT/MET calls and a higher mortality rate in the night than in the day shift. Further promotion to increase the number of calls and implementation of a 24-h RRT/MET is required.

A review of Code Blue activations in a single Regional Australian Healthcare Service: A retrospective descriptive study of RISKMAN data

BACKGROUND

In the case of life-threatening conditions such as respiratory or cardiac arrest, or the clinical deterioration of the patient, a Code Blue activation may be instigated. A Code Blue activation involves a team of advanced trained clinicians attending the emergency needs of the patient.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to explore the number of cases of Code Blue activations, looking at the timing, clinical ward, diagnosis and activation criteria while noting cases where escalation from a Medical Emergency Team (MET) call occurs in one Regional Healthcare Service in Victoria, Australia, over a six-year period.

METHODS

A quantitative retrospective descriptive study of Code Blue emergencies over a six-year period from June 2010 to June 2016 was conducted. Data collected from the RISKMAN program operating at a single site was imported into SPSS (V 22) for descriptive statistical analysis. A STROBE EQUATOR checklist was used for this study (see File S1).

FINDINGS

The majority of Code Blue activations were male (59%, n = 127) and aged between 70 and 89 years of age (43%, n = 93). A Code Blue activation was more likely to occur at 08:00 hr, 14:00 hr or 22:00 hr, corresponding to the nurses' change in shift, with the majority of Code Blues (27.8%, n = 60) occurring in the emergency department. Cardiac arrest was the main activation criterion with 54.6% (n = 118) cases followed by respiratory arrest (14%, n = 32). Interestingly, 20% (n = 45) of the Code Blue activations were upgraded from a Medical Emergency Team (MET) call.

CONCLUSION

This project has produced several interesting findings surrounding Code Blue activations at one regional healthcare service which are not present in existing literature and is worthwhile for further investigation.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Understanding Code Blue activation criteria, common timings (month, time of day) and patient demographics ensures clinicians can remain vigilant in watching for the signs of patient deterioration and improve staff preparedness Code Blue events.