OBJECTIVE: To evaluate characteristics and outcome of ICU patients admitted from general wards based on mode of admittance, via a rapid response team or conventional contact. DESIGN: Observational prospective study. SETTING: General ICU of a university hospital. PATIENTS: : A total of 694 admissions to ICU from general wards. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2009, two cohorts admitted to ICU from general wards were identified: those admitted by the rapid response team and those admitted in a conventional way. Patients admitted directly from the trauma room, the emergency department, operating room, other hospitals, or other ICUs were excluded. Of 694 admissions, 355 came through a rapid response team call. Rapid response team patients were older (p < 0.01), and they had more severe comorbidities, higher severity score (p < 0.01), and almost three times more often the diagnosis of severe sepsis (p < 0.01) than conventionally admitted patients. Rapid response team patients had higher ICU mortality and 30-day mortality with a crude odds ratio for mortality within 30 days of 1.57 (95% confidence interval 1.08-2.28). Adjusted for age and comorbidities however, the difference was no longer significant with an odds ratio of 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.70-1.76). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the rapid response team is an important system for identifying complex patients in need of intensive care. More than half of ICU admissions from the wards came through a rapid response team call. Compared with conventional admissions, rapid response team patients had a high proportion of characteristics that could be related to a worse prognosis. Severe sepsis at the wards was mainly detected by the rapid response team and was the most common admitting diagnosis among the rapid response team patients. When adjusted for confounding factors, outcome between the groups did not differ, supporting the use of rapid response systems to identify deteriorating ward patients.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate characteristics and outcome of ICU patients admitted from general wards based on mode of admittance, via a rapid response team or conventional contact. DESIGN: Observational prospective study. SETTING: General ICU of a university hospital. PATIENTS: : A total of 694 admissions to ICU from general wards. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2009, two cohorts admitted to ICU from general wards were identified: those admitted by the rapid response team and those admitted in a conventional way. Patients admitted directly from the trauma room, the emergency department, operating room, other hospitals, or other ICUs were excluded. Of 694 admissions, 355 came through a rapid response team call. Rapid response team patients were older (p < 0.01), and they had more severe comorbidities, higher severity score (p < 0.01), and almost three times more often the diagnosis of severe sepsis (p < 0.01) than conventionally admitted patients. Rapid response team patients had higher ICU mortality and 30-day mortality with a crude odds ratio for mortality within 30 days of 1.57 (95% confidence interval 1.08-2.28). Adjusted for age and comorbidities however, the difference was no longer significant with an odds ratio of 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.70-1.76). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the rapid response team is an important system for identifying complex patients in need of intensive care. More than half of ICU admissions from the wards came through a rapid response team call. Compared with conventional admissions, rapid response team patients had a high proportion of characteristics that could be related to a worse prognosis. Severe sepsis at the wards was mainly detected by the rapid response team and was the most common admitting diagnosis among the rapid response team patients. When adjusted for confounding factors, outcome between the groups did not differ, supporting the use of rapid response systems to identify deteriorating ward patients.
Authors: Frank Bloos; Hendrik Rüddel; Daniel Thomas-Rüddel; Daniel Schwarzkopf; Christine Pausch; Stephan Harbarth; Torsten Schreiber; Matthias Gründling; John Marshall; Philipp Simon; Mitchell M Levy; Manfred Weiss; Andreas Weyland; Herwig Gerlach; Tobias Schürholz; Christoph Engel; Claudia Matthäus-Krämer; Christian Scheer; Friedhelm Bach; Reimer Riessen; Bernhard Poidinger; Karin Dey; Norbert Weiler; Andreas Meier-Hellmann; Helene H Häberle; Gabriele Wöbker; Udo X Kaisers; Konrad Reinhart Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 17.440
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: Armando D Bedoya; Meredith E Clement; Matthew Phelan; Rebecca C Steorts; Cara O'Brien; Benjamin A Goldstein Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jung-Wan Yoo; Ju Ry Lee; Youn Kyung Jung; Sun Hui Choi; Jeong Suk Son; Byung Ju Kang; Tai Sun Park; Jin-Won Huh; Chae-Man Lim; Younsuck Koh; Sang Bum Hong Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 2.884
Authors: Shannon M Fernando; Alison E Fox-Robichaud; Bram Rochwerg; Pierre Cardinal; Andrew J E Seely; Jeffrey J Perry; Daniel I McIsaac; Alexandre Tran; Steven Skitch; Benjamin Tam; Michael Hickey; Peter M Reardon; Peter Tanuseputro; Kwadwo Kyeremanteng Journal: Crit Care Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: P Ramírez; M Gordón; M Martín-Cerezuela; E Villarreal; E Sancho; M Padrós; J Frasquet; G Leyva; I Molina; M Barrios; S Gimeno; Á Castellanos Journal: Med Intensiva (Engl Ed) Date: 2020-07-11