OBJECTIVE: Laws and regulations require many hospitals to implement rapid-response systems. However, the optimal resource intensity for such systems is unknown. We sought to determine whether a rapid-response system that relied on a patient's usual care providers, not a critical-care-trained rapid-response team, would improve patient outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: An interrupted time-series analysis of over a 59-month period. SETTING: Urban, academic hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred seven-one thousand, three hundred forty-one consecutive adult admissions. INTERVENTION: In the intervention period, patients were monitored for predefined, standardized, acute, vital-sign abnormalities or marked nursing concern. If these criteria were met, a team consisting of the patient's existing care providers was assembled. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The unadjusted risk of unexpected mortality was 72% lower (95% confidence interval 55%-83%) in the intervention period (absolute risk: 0.02% vs. 0.09%, p < .0001). The unadjusted in-hospital mortality rate was not significantly lower (1.9% vs. 2.1%, p = .07). After adjustment for age, gender, race, season of admission, case mix, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and intensive care unit bed capacity, the intervention period was associated with an 80% reduction (95% confidence interval 63%-89%, p < .0001) in the odds of unexpected death, but no significant change in overall mortality [odds ratio 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.82-1.02), p = .09]. Analyses that also adjusted for secular time trends confirmed these findings (relative risk reduction for unexpected mortality at end of intervention period: 65%, p = .0001; for in-hospital mortality, relative risk reduction = 5%, p = .2). CONCLUSIONS: A primary-team-based implementation of a rapid response system was independently associated with reduced unexpected mortality. This system relied on the patient's usual care providers, not an intensive care unit based rapid response team, and may offer a more cost-effective approach to rapid response systems, particularly for systems with limited intensivist availability.
OBJECTIVE: Laws and regulations require many hospitals to implement rapid-response systems. However, the optimal resource intensity for such systems is unknown. We sought to determine whether a rapid-response system that relied on a patient's usual care providers, not a critical-care-trained rapid-response team, would improve patient outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: An interrupted time-series analysis of over a 59-month period. SETTING: Urban, academic hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred seven-one thousand, three hundred forty-one consecutive adult admissions. INTERVENTION: In the intervention period, patients were monitored for predefined, standardized, acute, vital-sign abnormalities or marked nursing concern. If these criteria were met, a team consisting of the patient's existing care providers was assembled. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The unadjusted risk of unexpected mortality was 72% lower (95% confidence interval 55%-83%) in the intervention period (absolute risk: 0.02% vs. 0.09%, p < .0001). The unadjusted in-hospital mortality rate was not significantly lower (1.9% vs. 2.1%, p = .07). After adjustment for age, gender, race, season of admission, case mix, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and intensive care unit bed capacity, the intervention period was associated with an 80% reduction (95% confidence interval 63%-89%, p < .0001) in the odds of unexpected death, but no significant change in overall mortality [odds ratio 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.82-1.02), p = .09]. Analyses that also adjusted for secular time trends confirmed these findings (relative risk reduction for unexpected mortality at end of intervention period: 65%, p = .0001; for in-hospital mortality, relative risk reduction = 5%, p = .2). CONCLUSIONS: A primary-team-based implementation of a rapid response system was independently associated with reduced unexpected mortality. This system relied on the patient's usual care providers, not an intensive care unit based rapid response team, and may offer a more cost-effective approach to rapid response systems, particularly for systems with limited intensivist availability.
Authors: P J Bristow; K M Hillman; T Chey; K Daffurn; T C Jacques; S L Norman; G F Bishop; E G Simmons Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Rinaldo Bellomo; Donna Goldsmith; Shigehiko Uchino; Jonathan Buckmaster; Graeme Hart; Helen Opdam; William Silvester; Laurie Doolan; Geoffrey Gutteridge Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Rinaldo Bellomo; Donna Goldsmith; Shigehiko Uchino; Jonathan Buckmaster; Graeme K Hart; Helen Opdam; William Silvester; Laurie Doolan; Geoffrey Gutteridge Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2003-09-15 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Kelly L Graham; Elissa H Wilker; Michael D Howell; Roger B Davis; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sharukh Lokhandwala; Ari Moskowitz; Rebecca Lawniczak; Tyler Giberson; Michael N Cocchi; Michael W Donnino Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: John C O'Horo; Ronaldo A Sevilla Berrios; Jennifer L Elmer; Venu Velagapudi; Sean M Caples; Rahul Kashyap; Jeffrey B Jensen Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Melissa L P Mattison; Angela Catic; Roger B Davis; Daniele Olveczky; Julie Moran; Julius Yang; Mark Aronson; Mark Zeidel; Lewis Lipsitz; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Lars W Andersen; Won Young Kim; Maureen Chase; Katherine M Berg; Sharri J Mortensen; Ari Moskowitz; Victor Novack; Michael N Cocchi; Michael W Donnino Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: R Scott Evans; Kathryn G Kuttler; Kathy J Simpson; Stephen Howe; Peter F Crossno; Kyle V Johnson; Misty N Schreiner; James F Lloyd; William H Tettelbach; Roger K Keddington; Alden Tanner; Chelbi Wilde; Terry P Clemmer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Bradford D Winters; Sallie J Weaver; Elizabeth R Pfoh; Ting Yang; Julius Cuong Pham; Sydney M Dy Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 25.391