Point prevalence of patients fulfilling MET criteria in ten MET equipped hospitals. The methodology of the RESCUE study

Vital sign abnormalities as predictors of clinical deterioration in subacute care patients: A prospective case-time-control study

BACKGROUND

Emergency interhospital transfers from inpatient subacute care to acute care occur in 8% to 17.4% of admitted patients and are associated with high rates of acute care readmission and in-hospital mortality. Serious adverse events in subacute care (rapid response team or cardiac arrest team calls) and increased nursing surveillance are the strongest known predictors of emergency interhospital transfer from subacute to acute care hospitals. However, the epidemiology of clinical deterioration across sectors of care, and specifically in subacute care is not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the trajectory of clinical deterioration in patients who did and did not have an emergency interhospital transfer from subacute to acute care; and develop an internally validated predictive model to identify the role of vital sign abnormalities in predicting these emergency interhospital transfers.

DESIGN

This prospective, exploratory cohort study is a subanalysis of data derived from a larger case-time-control study.

SETTING

Twenty-two wards of eight subacute care hospitals in five major health services in Victoria, Australia. All subacute care hospitals were geographically separate from their health services' acute care hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients with an emergency transfer from inpatient rehabilitation or geriatric evaluation and management unit to an acute care hospital within the same health service were included. Patients receiving palliative care were excluded.

METHODS

Study data were collected between 22 August 2015 and 30 October 2016 by medical record audit. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test and bivariate logistic regression analysis were used to compare cases with controls and to account for health service clustering effect.

RESULTS

Data were collected on 603 transfers (557 patients) and 1160 controls. Adjusted for health service, ≥2 vital sign abnormalities in subacute care (adjusted odds ratio=8.81, 95% confidence intervals:6.36-12.19, p<0.001) and serious adverse events during the first acute care admission (adjusted odds ratio=1.28, 95% confidence intervals:1.08-1.99, p=0.015) were the clinical factors associated with increased risk of emergency interhospital transfer. An internally validated predictive model showed that vital sign abnormalities can fairly predict emergency interhospital transfers from subacute to acute care hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Serious adverse events in acute care should be a key consideration in decisions about the location of subacute care delivery. During subacute care, 15.7% of cases had vital signs fulfilling organisational rapid response team activation criteria, yet missed rapid response team activations were common suggesting that further consideration of the criteria and strategies to optimise recognition and response to clinical deterioration in subacute care are needed.

The epidemiology of adult Rapid Response Team patients in Australia

Rapid Response Teams (RRT) are specialised teams that review deteriorating ward patients in an attempt to prevent morbidity and mortality. Most studies have assessed the effect of implementing an RRT into a hospital. There is much less literature on the characteristics and outcomes of RRT patients themselves. This article reviews the epidemiology of adult RRT patients in Australia and proposes three models of RRT syndromes. The number of RRT calls varies considerably in Australian hospitals from 1.35 to 71.3/1000 hospital admissions. Common causes of RRT calls include sepsis, atrial fibrillation, seizures and pulmonary oedema. Approximately 20% of patients to whom an RRT has responded have more than one RRT call, and up to one-third have issues around end-of-life care. Calls are least common overnight. Between 10 to 25% of patients are admitted to a critical care area after the call. The in-hospital mortality for RRT patients is approximately 25% overall but only 15% in patients without a limitation of medical therapy. RRT syndromes can be conceptually described by the trigger for the call (e.g. hypotension) or the clinical condition causing the call (e.g. sepsis). Alternatively, the RRT call can be described by the major theme of the call: "end-of-life care", "requiring critical care" and "stable enough to initially remain on the ward". Based on these themes, education strategies and quality improvement initiatives may be developed to reduce the incidence of RRT calls, further improving patient outcome.

Research ethics board approval for an international thromboprophylaxis trial

BACKGROUND

Research ethics board (REB) review of scientific protocols is essential, ensuring participants' dignity, safety, and rights. The objectives of this study were to examine the time from submission to approval, to analyze predictors of approval time, and to describe the scope of conditions from REBs evaluating an international thromboprophylaxis trial.

METHODS

We generated survey items through literature review and investigators' discussions, creating 4 domains: respondent and institutional demographics, the REB application process, and alternate consent models. We conducted a document analysis that involved duplicate assessment of themes from REB critique of the protocol and informed consent forms (ICF).

RESULTS

Approval was granted from 65 REB institutions, requiring 58 unique applications. We analyzed 44 (75.9%) of 58 documents and surveys. Survey respondents completing the applications had 8 (5-12) years of experience; 77% completed 4 or more REB applications in previous 5 years. Critical care personnel were represented on 54% of REBs. The time to approval was a median (interquartile range) of 75 (42, 150) days, taking longer for sites with national research consortium membership (89.1 vs 31.0 days, P = .03). Document analysis of the application process and ICF yielded 5 themes: methodology, data management, consent procedures, cataloguing, and miscellaneous. Protocol-specific themes focused on trial implementation, external critiques, and budget. The only theme specific to the ICF was risks and benefits. The most frequent comments on the protocol and ICF were about methodology and miscellaneous issues; ICF comments also addressed study risks and benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

More studies on methods to enhance efficiency and consistency of the REB approval processes for clinical trials are needed while still maintaining high ethical standards.