Identifying the ICU recidivist in the hospital*

Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Clinical Consequences of Recurrent Activation of a Rapid Response Team: A Multicenter Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Rapid response teams (RRTs) are groups of health-care providers, implemented by hospitals to respond to distressed hospitalized patients on the hospital wards. Patients assessed by the RRT for deterioration may be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or may be triaged to remain on the wards, putting them at risk of recurrent deterioration and repeat RRT activation. Previous studies evaluating outcomes of patients with recurrent deterioration and multiple RRT activations have produced conflicting results.

METHODS

We used a prospectively collected multicenter registry from 2 hospitals within a single tertiary-level hospital system between 2012 and 2016. Comparisons were made between patients with a single RRT activation and those with multiple RRT activations over the course of their admission. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, which was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 5995 patients who had any RRT activation were analyzed. Of that, 1183 (19.7%) patients had recurrent deterioration and multiple RRT activations during their admission. Risk factors for recurrent deterioration included admission from a home setting (as opposed to a long-term care facility), RRT activation during nighttime hours, and delay (>1 hour) to RRT activation. Recurrent deterioration was associated with increased odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.44 [1.28-1.64], P = <.001). Increasing number of RRT activations were associated with increasing risk of mortality. Patients with recurrent deterioration had prolonged median hospital length of stay (21.0 days vs 12.0 days, P < .001), while patients with only a single activation were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (adjusted OR: 2.30 [1.96-2.70], P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrent deteriorations leading to RRT activations among hospitalized patients are associated with increased odds of mortality and prolonged hospital length of stay. This work identifies a group of patients who warrant closer attention to help reduce adverse outcomes.

Effectiveness of continuous or intermittent vital signs monitoring in preventing adverse events on general wards: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Vital signs monitoring is an old hospital practice for patient safety but evaluation of its effectiveness is not widespread. We aimed to identify strategies to improve intermittent or continuous vital signs monitoring in general wards; and their effectiveness in preventing adverse events on general hospital wards.

METHODS

Publications searched between 1980 and June 2014 in five databases. Main outcome measures were in-hospital death, cardiac arrest, intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, length of stay, identification of physiological deterioration and activation of rapid response systems.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies assessing the effect of continuous (9) or intermittent monitoring (13) and reporting outcomes on 203,407 patients in-hospital wards across 13 countries were included in this review. Both monitoring practices led to early identification of patient deterioration, increased rapid response activations and improvements in timeliness or completeness of vital signs documentation. Innovative intermittent monitoring approaches are associated with modest reduction in in-hospital mortality over intermittent vital signs monitoring in 'usual care'. However, there was no evidence of significant reduction in ICU transfers or other adverse events with either intermittent or continuous monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

This review of heterogeneous monitoring approaches found no conclusive confirmation of improvements in prevention of cardiac arrest, reduction in length of hospital stay, or prevention of other neurological or cardiovascular adverse events. The evidence found to date is insufficient to recommend continuous vital signs monitoring in general wards as routine practice. Future evaluations of effectiveness need to be undertaken with more rigorous methods and homogeneous outcome measurements.