Comparison of clinical outcomes between nurse practitioner and registrar-led medical emergency teams: a propensity-matched analysis

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.

Advanced Practice Providers as Leaders of a Rapid Response Team: A Prospective Cohort Study

In view of the shortage of medical staff, the quality and continuity of care may be improved by employing advanced practice providers (APPs). This study aims to assess the quality of these APPs in critical care. In a large teaching hospital, rapid response team (RRT) interventions led by APPs were assessed by independent observers and intensivists and compared to those led by medical residents MRs. In addition to mortality, the MAELOR tool (assessment of RRT intervention), time from RRT call until arrival at the scene and time until completion of clinical investigations were assessed. Process outcomes were assessed with the crisis management skills checklist, the Ottawa global rating scale and the Mayo high-performance teamwork scale. The intensivists assessed performance with the handoff CEX recipient scale. Mortality, MAELOR tool, time until arrival and clinical investigation in both groups were the same. Process outcomes and performance observer scores were also equal. The CEX recipient scores, however, showed differences between MRs and APPs that increased with experience. Experienced APPs had significantly better situational awareness, better organization, better evaluations and better judgment than MRs with equal experience (p < 0.05). This study shows that APPs perform well in leading an RRT and may provide added quality over a resident. RRTs should seriously consider the deployment of APPs instead of junior clinicians.

Advanced practice providers versus medical residents as leaders of rapid response teams: A 12-month retrospective analysis

Purpose

In a time of worldwide physician shortages, the advanced practice providers (APPs) might be a good alternative for physicians as the leaders of a rapid response team. This retrospective analysis aimed to establish whether the performance of APP-led rapid response teams is comparable to the performance of rapid response teams led by a medical resident of the ICU.

Material and methods

In a retrospective single-center cohort study, the electronic medical record of a tertiary hospital was queried during a 12-months period to identify patients who had been visited by our rapid response team. Patient- and process-related outcomes of interventions of rapid response teams led by an APP were compared with those of teams led by a medical resident using various parameters, including the MAELOR tool, which measures the performance of a rapid response team.

Results

In total, 179 responses of the APP-led teams were analyzed, versus 275 responses of the teams led by a resident. Per APP, twice as many calls were handled than per resident. Interventions of teams led by APPs, and residents did not differ in number of admissions (p = 0.87), mortality (p = 0.8), early warning scores (p = 0.2) or MAELOR tool triggering (p = 0.19). Both groups scored equally on time to admission (p = 0.67) or time until any performed intervention.

Conclusion

This retrospective analysis showed that the quality of APP-led rapid response teams was similar to the quality of teams led by a resident. These findings need to be confirmed by prospective studies with balanced outcome parameters.