The illness severity of ward remaining patients reviewed by the medical emergency team: A retrospective cohort study

Patient outcomes following medical emergency team review on general wards: Development of predictive models

AIM

To develop and internally validate risk prediction models for subsequent clinical deterioration, unplanned ICU admission and death among ward patients following medical emergency team (MET) review.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study of 1500 patients who remained on a general ward following MET review at an Australian quaternary hospital.

METHOD

Logistic regression was used to model (1) subsequent MET review within 48 h, (2) unplanned ICU admission within 48 h and (3) hospital mortality. Models included demographic, clinical and illness severity variables. Model performance was evaluated using discrimination and calibration with optimism-corrected bootstrapped estimates. Findings are reported using the TRIPOD guideline for multivariable prediction models for prognosis or diagnosis. There was no patient or public involvement in the development and conduct of this study.

RESULTS

Within 48 h of index MET review, 8.3% (n = 125) of patients had a subsequent MET review, 7.2% (n = 108) had an unplanned ICU admission and in-hospital mortality was 16% (n = 240). From clinically preselected predictors, models retained age, sex, comorbidity, resuscitation limitation, acuity-dependency profile, MET activation triggers and whether the patient was within 24 h of hospital admission, ICU discharge or surgery. Models for subsequent MET review, unplanned ICU admission, and death had adequate accuracy in development and bootstrapped validation samples.

CONCLUSION

Patients requiring MET review demonstrate complex clinical characteristics and the majority remain on the ward after review for deterioration. A risk score could be used to identify patients at risk of poor outcomes after MET review and support general ward clinical decision-making.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Our risk calculator estimates risk for patient outcomes following MET review using clinical data available at the bedside. Future validation and implementation could support evidence-informed team communication and patient placement decisions.

Transforming nursing assessment in acute hospitals: A cluster randomised controlled trial of an evidence-based nursing core assessment (the ENCORE trial)

BACKGROUND

Patient safety is threatened when early signs of clinical deterioration are missed or not acted upon. This research began as a clinical-academic partnership established around a shared concern of nursing physical assessment practices on general wards and delayed recognition of clinical deterioration. The outcome was the development of a complex intervention facilitated at the ward level for proactive nursing surveillance.

METHODS

The evidence-based nursing core assessment (ENCORE) trial was a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. We hypothesised that ward intervention would reduce the incidence of patient rescue events (medical emergency team activations) and serious adverse events. We randomised 29 general wards in a 1:2 allocation, across 5 Australian hospitals to intervention (n = 10) and usual care wards (n = 19). Skilled facilitation over 12 months enabled practitioner-led, ward-level practice change for proactive nursing surveillance. The primary outcome was the rate of medical emergency team activations and secondary outcomes were unplanned intensive care unit admissions, on-ward resuscitations, and unexpected deaths. Outcomes were prospectively collected for 6 months following the initial 6 months of implementation. Analysis was at the patient level using generalised linear mixed models to account for clustering by ward.

RESULTS

We analysed 29,385 patient admissions to intervention (n = 11,792) and control (n = 17,593) wards. Adjusted models for overall effects suggested the intervention increased the rate of medical emergency team activations (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.314; 95 % confidence interval 0.975, 1.773), although the confidence interval was compatible with a marginal decrease to a substantial increase in rate. Confidence intervals for secondary outcomes included a range of plausible effects from benefit to harm. However, considerable heterogeneity was observed in intervention effects by patient comorbidity. Among patients with few comorbid conditions in the intervention arm there was a lower medical emergency team activation rate and decreased odds of unexpected death. Among patients with multimorbidity in the intervention arm there were higher rates of medical emergency team activation and intensive care unit admissions.

CONCLUSION

Trial outcomes have refined our assumptions about the impact of the ENCORE intervention. The intervention appears to have protective effects for patients with low complexity where frontline teams can respond locally. It also appears to have redistributed medical emergency team activations and unplanned intensive care unit admissions, mobilising higher rates of rescue for patients with multimorbidity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12618001903279 (Date of registration: 22/11/2018; First participant recruited: 01/02/2019).