Effects of rapid response systems on clinical outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis
ABSTRACT A rapid response system (RRS) consists of providers who immediately assess and treat unstable hospitalized patients. Examples include medical emergency teams and rapid response teams. Early reports of major improvements in patient outcomes led to widespread utilization of RRSs, despite the negative results of a subsequent cluster-randomized trial.
To evaluate the effects of RRSs on clinical outcomes through a systematic literature review.
MEDLINE, BIOSIS, and CINAHL searches through August 2006, review of conference proceedings and article bibliographies.
Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, and before-after studies reporting effects of an RRS on inpatient mortality, cardiopulmonary arrests, or unscheduled ICU admissions.
Two authors independently determined study eligibility, abstracted data, and classified study quality.
Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria: 1 cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT), 1 interrupted time series, and 11 before-after studies. The RCT showed no effects on any clinical outcome. Before-after studies showed reductions in inpatient mortality (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74-0.91) and cardiac arrest (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.83). However, these studies were of poor methodological quality, and control hospitals in the RCT reported reductions in mortality and cardiac arrest rates comparable to those in the before-after studies.
Published studies of RRSs have not found consistent improvement in clinical outcomes and have been of poor methodological quality. The positive results of before-after trials likely reflects secular trends and biased outcome ascertainment, as the improved outcomes they reported were of similar magnitude to those of the control group in the RCT. The effectiveness of the RRS concept remains unproven.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Rapid response to clinical deterioration plays an important role to improve patient safety. In this paper, we present an initial study on modeling and analysis of the rapid response process in acute care. Specifically, such a process is modeled as a complex network with split, merge, and parallel structures. An analytical method is developed to evaluate the decision time (from detection of patient deteriorating to a doctor's decision for treatment) and its variability. Structural properties are discussed and continuous improvement methods for identification and mitigation of bottlenecks in the rapid response operations are provided. A case study at the acute care at the University of Kentucky Chandler Hospital is introduced to validate the model, and continuous improvement recommendations are investigated. Finally, potential future work to extend the study is discussed.IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 04/2012; 9(2):215-225. DOI:10.1109/TASE.2012.2187893 · 2.16 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Involvement of health personnel in a medical audit can reduce the number of errors in laboratory medicine. The checked control of point of care testing (POCT) could be an answer to developing a better medical service in the emergency department and decreasing the time taken to report tests. The performance of sanitary personnel from different disciplines was studied over an 18-month period in a children's hospital. Clinical errors in the emergency and laboratory departments were monitored by: nursing instruction using specific courses, POCT, and external quality control; improvement of test results and procedural accuracy; and reduction of hemolyzed and nonprotocol-conforming samples sent to the laboratory department. In January 2012, point of care testing (POCT) was instituted in three medical units (neonatology, resuscitation, delivery room) at the Children's Hospital in Trieste, northeast Italy, for analysis of hematochemical samples. In the same period, during the months of January 2012 and June 2013, 1,600 samples sent to central laboratory and their related preanalytical errors were examined for accuracy. External quality control for POCT was also monitored in the emergency department; three meetings were held with physicians, nurses, and laboratory technicians to highlight problems, ie, preanalytical errors and analytical methodologies associated with POCT. During the study, there was an improvement in external quality control for POCT from -3 or -2 standard deviations or more to one standard deviation for all parameters. Of 800 samples examined in the laboratory in January 2012, we identified 64 preanalytical errors (8.0%); in June 2013, there were 17 preanalytical errors (2.1%), representing a significant decrease (P<0.05, χ(2) test). Multidisciplinary management and clinical audit can be used as tools to detect errors caused by organizational problems outside the laboratory and improve clinical and economic outcomes.Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 01/2014; 7:45-50. DOI:10.2147/JMDH.S53904
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Rapid response systems (RRSs) are recommended by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and implemented worldwide. Our study on the effects of an RRS showed a non-significant decrease in cardiac arrest and/or unexpected death from 0.5% to 0.25%. Unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions increased significantly from 2.5% to 4.2% without a decrease in APACHE II scores. In this study, we estimated the mean costs of an RRS per patient day and tested the hypothesis that admitting less severely ill patients to the ICU reduces costs. A cost analysis of an RRS on a surgical ward, including costs for implementation, a 1-day training programme for nurses, nursing time for extra vital signs observation, medical emergency team (MET) consults and differences in unplanned ICU days before and after RRS implementation. To test the hypothesis, we performed a scenario analysis with a mean APACHE II score of 14 points instead of the empirical 17.6 points for the unplanned ICU admissions, including 33% extra MET consults and 22% extra unplanned ICU admissions. Mean RRS costs were €26.87 per patient-day: implementation €0.33 (1%), training €0.90 (3%), nursing time spent on extended observation of vital signs €2.20 (8%), MET consults €0.57 (2%) and increased number of unplanned ICU days after RRS implementation €22.87 (85%). In the scenario analysis mean costs per patient-day were €10.18. The costs for extra unplanned ICU days were relatively high but the remaining RRS costs were relatively low. The 'APACHE II 14' scenario confirmed the hypothesis that costs for the number of unplanned ICU days can be reduced if less severely ill patients are referred to the ICU. Based upon these findings, our hospital stimulates earlier referral to the ICU, although further implementation strategies are needed to achieve these aims.Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 04/2014; 20(4). DOI:10.1111/jep.12134 · 1.58 Impact Factor