Patrick W Brady1, Julie Zix2, Richard Brilli3, Derek S Wheeler4, Kristie Griffith5, Mary Jo Giaccone2, Kathy Dressman2, Uma Kotagal6, Stephen Muething1, Ken Tegtmeyer7. 1. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Department of Pediatrics, James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 2. Department of Patient Services, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 3. Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 5. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 7. Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family-activated medical emergency teams (MET) have the potential to improve the timely recognition of clinical deterioration and reduce preventable adverse events. Adoption of family-activated METs is hindered by concerns that the calls may substantially increase MET workload. We aimed to develop a reliable process for family activated METs and to evaluate its effect on MET call rate and subsequent transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The setting was our free-standing children's hospital. We partnered with families to develop and test an educational intervention for clinicians and families, an informational poster in each patient room and a redesigned process with hospital operators who handle MET calls. We tracked our primary outcome of count of family-activated MET calls on a statistical process control chart. Additionally, we determined the association between family-activated versus clinician-activated MET and transfer to the ICU. Finally, we compared the reason for MET activation between family calls and a 2:1 matched sample of clinician calls. RESULTS: Over our 6-year study period, we had a total of 83 family-activated MET calls. Families made an average of 1.2 calls per month, which represented 2.9% of all MET calls. Children with family-activated METs were transferred to the ICU less commonly than those with clinician MET calls (24% vs 60%, p<0.001). Families, like clinicians, most commonly called MET for concerns of clinical deterioration. Families also identified lack of response from clinicians and a dismissive interaction between team and family as reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Family MET activations were uncommon and not a burden on responders. These calls recognised clinical deterioration and communication failures. Family activated METs should be tested and implemented in hospitals that care for children. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Family-activated medical emergency teams (MET) have the potential to improve the timely recognition of clinical deterioration and reduce preventable adverse events. Adoption of family-activated METs is hindered by concerns that the calls may substantially increase MET workload. We aimed to develop a reliable process for family activated METs and to evaluate its effect on MET call rate and subsequent transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The setting was our free-standing children's hospital. We partnered with families to develop and test an educational intervention for clinicians and families, an informational poster in each patient room and a redesigned process with hospital operators who handle MET calls. We tracked our primary outcome of count of family-activated MET calls on a statistical process control chart. Additionally, we determined the association between family-activated versus clinician-activated MET and transfer to the ICU. Finally, we compared the reason for MET activation between family calls and a 2:1 matched sample of clinician calls. RESULTS: Over our 6-year study period, we had a total of 83 family-activated MET calls. Families made an average of 1.2 calls per month, which represented 2.9% of all MET calls. Children with family-activated METs were transferred to the ICU less commonly than those with clinician MET calls (24% vs 60%, p<0.001). Families, like clinicians, most commonly called MET for concerns of clinical deterioration. Families also identified lack of response from clinicians and a dismissive interaction between team and family as reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Family MET activations were uncommon and not a burden on responders. These calls recognised clinical deterioration and communication failures. Family activated METs should be tested and implemented in hospitals that care for children. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Susan R Conway; Ken Tegtmeyer; Derek S Wheeler; Allison Loechtenfeldt; Erika L Stalets; Patrick W Brady Journal: Pediatr Qual Saf Date: 2020-09-07
Authors: Patrick W Brady; Barbara K Giambra; Susan N Sherman; Caitlin Clohessy; Allison M Loechtenfeldt; Kathleen E Walsh; Samir S Shah; Carole Lannon Journal: Hosp Pediatr Date: 2020-08-12
Authors: Abigail K Albutt; Jane K O'Hara; Mark T Conner; Stephen J Fletcher; Rebecca J Lawton Journal: Health Expect Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Bernd W Böttiger; Pierre Carli; Keith Couper; Charles D Deakin; Therese Djärv; Carsten Lott; Theresa Olasveengen; Peter Paal; Tommaso Pellis; Gavin D Perkins; Claudio Sandroni; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Daisy Goodman; Greg Ogrinc; Louise Davies; G Ross Baker; Jane Barnsteiner; Tina C Foster; Kari Gali; Joanne Hilden; Leora Horwitz; Heather C Kaplan; Jerome Leis; John C Matulis; Susan Michie; Rebecca Miltner; Julia Neily; William A Nelson; Matthew Niedner; Brant Oliver; Lori Rutman; Richard Thomson; Johan Thor Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Sigall K Bell; Stephanie D Roche; Ariel Mueller; Erica Dente; Kristin O'Reilly; Barbara Sarnoff Lee; Kenneth Sands; Daniel Talmor; Samuel M Brown Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 7.035