OBJECTIVE: Treatment of nontraumatic shock is often delayed or inadequate due to insufficient knowledge or skills of front-line healthcare providers, limited hospital resources, and lack of institution-wide systems to ensure application of best practice. As a result, mortality from shock remains high. We designed a study to determine whether outcomes will be improved by a hospital-wide system that educates and empowers clinicians to rapidly identify and treat patients in shock with a multidisciplinary team using evidenced-based protocols. DESIGN: Single-center trial before and after implementation of a hospital-wide rapid response system for early identification and treatment of patients in shock. SETTING: A 180-bed regional referral center in northern California. PATIENTS: A total of 511 adult patients who met criteria for shock during a 7-yr period. INTERVENTIONS: We designed a rapid response system that included a comprehensive educational program for clinicians on earlier recognition of shock, empowerment of front-line providers using specific criteria to initiate therapy, mobilization of the rapid response team, protocol goal-directed therapy, and early transfer to the intensive care unit. Outcome feedback was provided to foster adoption. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured times to key interventions and hospital mortality 2.5 yrs before and until 5 yrs after system initiation. Times to interventions and mortality decreased significantly over time before and after adjusting for confounding factors. Interventions times, including shock alert activation, infusion of 2 L of fluid, central venous catheter placement, and antibiotic administration, were significant predictors of mortality (p < .05). Overall and septic subgroup mortality decreased from before system implementation through protocol year 5 from 40% to 11.8% and from 50% to 10%, respectively (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Over time, a rapid response system for patients in shock continued to reduce time to treatment, resulting in a continued decrease in mortality. By year 5, only three patients needed to be treated to save one additional life.
OBJECTIVE: Treatment of nontraumatic shock is often delayed or inadequate due to insufficient knowledge or skills of front-line healthcare providers, limited hospital resources, and lack of institution-wide systems to ensure application of best practice. As a result, mortality from shock remains high. We designed a study to determine whether outcomes will be improved by a hospital-wide system that educates and empowers clinicians to rapidly identify and treat patients in shock with a multidisciplinary team using evidenced-based protocols. DESIGN: Single-center trial before and after implementation of a hospital-wide rapid response system for early identification and treatment of patients in shock. SETTING: A 180-bed regional referral center in northern California. PATIENTS: A total of 511 adult patients who met criteria for shock during a 7-yr period. INTERVENTIONS: We designed a rapid response system that included a comprehensive educational program for clinicians on earlier recognition of shock, empowerment of front-line providers using specific criteria to initiate therapy, mobilization of the rapid response team, protocol goal-directed therapy, and early transfer to the intensive care unit. Outcome feedback was provided to foster adoption. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured times to key interventions and hospital mortality 2.5 yrs before and until 5 yrs after system initiation. Times to interventions and mortality decreased significantly over time before and after adjusting for confounding factors. Interventions times, including shock alert activation, infusion of 2 L of fluid, central venous catheter placement, and antibiotic administration, were significant predictors of mortality (p < .05). Overall and septic subgroup mortality decreased from before system implementation through protocol year 5 from 40% to 11.8% and from 50% to 10%, respectively (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Over time, a rapid response system for patients in shock continued to reduce time to treatment, resulting in a continued decrease in mortality. By year 5, only three patients needed to be treated to save one additional life.
Authors: Mark E Mikkelsen; David F Gaieski; Munish Goyal; Andrea N Miltiades; Jeffrey C Munson; Jesse M Pines; Barry D Fuchs; Chirag V Shah; Scarlett L Bellamy; Jason D Christie Journal: Chest Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Jae-Uk Song; Gee Young Suh; Hye Yun Park; So Yeon Lim; Seo Goo Han; Yeh Rim Kang; O Jung Kwon; Sookyoung Woo; Kyeongman Jeon Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: James P Moriarty; Nicola E Schiebel; Matthew G Johnson; Jeffrey B Jensen; Sean M Caples; Bruce W Morlan; Jeanne M Huddleston; Marianne Huebner; James M Naessens Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Shaun P Patel; Jay S Lee; David N Ranney; Shaza N Al-Holou; Christopher M Frost; Meredith E Harris; Sarah A Lewin; Erqi Liu; Arin Madenci; Allen A Majkrzak; Jessica Nelson; Sarah F Peterson; Kerri A Serecky; David A Wilkinson; Brandon M Wojcik; Michael J Englesbe; Raymond J Lynch Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Michael H Hooper; Lisa Weavind; Arthur P Wheeler; Jason B Martin; Supriya Srinivasa Gowda; Matthew W Semler; Rachel M Hayes; Daniel W Albert; Norment B Deane; Hui Nian; Janos L Mathe; Andras Nadas; Janos Sztipanovits; Anne Miller; Gordon R Bernard; Todd W Rice Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Daniel A Barocas; Chirag S Kulahalli; Jesse M Ehrenfeld; April N Kapu; David F Penson; Chaochen Chad You; Lisa Weavind; Roger Dmochowski Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-11-23 Impact factor: 6.113