scholarly journals Incidents resulting from staff leaving normal duties to attend medical emergency team calls

2014 ◽  
Vol 201 (9) ◽  
pp. 528-531 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Considine ◽  
Anastasia F. Hutchison ◽  
Helen Rawson ◽  
Alison M. Hutchinson ◽  
Tracey Bucknall ◽  
...  

Objectives The aim of the present study was to describe and compare organisational guidance documents related to recognising and responding to clinical deterioration across five health services in Victoria, Australia. Methods Guidance documents were obtained from five health services, comprising 13 acute care hospitals, eight subacute care hospitals and approximately 5500 beds. Analysis was guided by a specific policy analysis framework and a priori themes. Results In all, 22 guidance documents and five graphic observation and response charts were reviewed. Variation was observed in terminology, content and recommendations between the health services. Most health services’ definitions of physiological observations fulfilled national standards in terms of minimum parameters and frequency of assessment. All health services had three-tier rapid response systems (RRS) in place at both acute and subacute care sites, consisting of activation criteria and an expected response. RRS activation criteria varied between sites, with all sites requiring modifications to RRS activation criteria to be made by medical staff. All sites had processes for patient and family escalation of care. Conclusions Current guidance documents related to the frequency of observations and escalation of care omit the vital role of nurses in these processes. Inconsistencies between health services may lead to confusion in a mobile workforce and may reduce system dependability. What is known about the topic? Recognising and responding to clinical deterioration is a major patient safety priority. To comply with national standards, health services must have systems in place for recognising and responding to clinical deterioration. What does this paper add? There is some variability in terminology, definitions and specifications of physiological observations and medical emergency team (MET) activation criteria between health services. Although nurses are largely responsible for physiological observations and escalation of care, they have little authority to direct frequency of observations and triggers for care escalation or tailor assessment to individual patient needs. Failure to identify nurses’ role in policy is concerning and contrary to the evidence regarding nurses and MET activations in practice. What are the implications for practitioners? Inconsistencies in recommendations regarding physiological observations and escalation of care criteria may create patient safety issues when students and staff work across organisations or move from one organisation to another. The validity of other parameters, such as appearance, pain, skin colour and cognition, warrant further consideration as early indicators of deterioration that may be used by nurses to identify clinical deterioration earlier. A better understanding of the relationship between the sensitivity, specificity and frequency of monitoring of particular physiological observations and patient outcomes is needed to improve the predictive validity for identification of clinical deterioration.


2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Topple ◽  
Brooke Ryan ◽  
Richard McKay ◽  
Damien Blythe ◽  
John Rogan ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e0168729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeo Kurita ◽  
Taka-aki Nakada ◽  
Rui Kawaguchi ◽  
Koichiro Shinozaki ◽  
Ryuzo Abe ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-145
Author(s):  
Marina Lee ◽  
David McD Taylor ◽  
Antony Ugoni

Introduction: To determine the association between both abnormal individual vital signs and abnormal vital sign groups in the emergency department, and undesirable patient outcomes: hospital admission, medical emergency team calls and death. Method: We undertook a prospective cohort study in a tertiary referral emergency department (February–May 2015). Vital signs were collected prospectively in the emergency department and undesirable outcomes from the medical records. The primary outcomes were undesirable outcomes for individual vital signs (multivariate logistic regression) and vital sign groups (univariate analyses). Results: Data from 1438 patients were analysed. Admission was associated with tachycardia, tachypnoea, fever, ≥1 abnormal vital sign on admission to the emergency department, ≥1 abnormal vital sign at any time in the emergency department, a persistently abnormal vital sign, and vital signs consistent with both sepsis (tachycardia/hypotension/abnormal temperature) and pneumonia (tachypnoea/fever) (p < 0.05). Medical emergency team calls were associated with tachycardia, tachypnoea, ≥1 abnormal vital sign on admission (odds ratio: 2.3, 95% confidence interval: 1.4–3.8), ≥2 abnormal vital signs at any time (odds ratio: 2.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.2–4.7), and a persistently abnormal vital sign (odds ratio: 2.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.6–4.6). Death was associated with Glasgow Coma Score ≤13 (odds ratio: 6.3, 95% confidence interval: 2.5–16.0), ≥1 abnormal vital sign on admission (odds ratio: 2.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.2–5.6), ≥2 abnormal vital signs at any time (odds ratio: 6.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.4–29.5), a persistently abnormal vital sign (odds ratio: 4.3, 95% confidence interval: 2.0–9.0), and vital signs consistent with pneumonia (odds ratio: 5.3, 95% confidence interval: 1.9–14.8). Conclusion: Abnormal vital sign groups are generally superior to individual vital signs in predicting undesirable outcomes. They could inform best practice management, emergency department disposition, and communication with the patient and family.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0258221
Author(s):  
Su Yeon Lee ◽  
Jee Hwan Ahn ◽  
Byung Ju Kang ◽  
Kyeongman Jeon ◽  
Sang-Min Lee ◽  
...  

Background According to the rapid response system’s team composition, responding teams were named as rapid response team (RRT), medical emergency team (MET), and critical care outreach. A RRT is often a nurse-led team, whereas a MET is a physician-led team that mainly plays the role of an efferent limb. As few multicenter studies have focused on physician-led METs, we comprehensively analyzed cases for which physician-led METs were activated. Methods We retrospectively analyzed cases for which METs were activated. The study population consisted of subjects over 18 years of age who were admitted in the general ward from January 2016 to December 2017 in 9 tertiary teaching hospitals in Korea. The data on subjects’ characteristics, activation causes, activation methods, performed interventions, in-hospital mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) transfer after MET activation were collected and analyzed. Results In this study, 12,767 cases were analyzed, excluding those without in-hospital mortality data. The subjects’ median age was 67 years, and 70.4% of them were admitted to the medical department. The most common cause of MET activation was respiratory distress (35.1%), followed by shock (11.8%), and the most common underlying disease was solid cancer (39%). In 7,561 subjects (59.2%), the MET was activated using the screening system. The commonly performed procedures were arterial line insertion (17.9%), intubation (13.3%), and portable ultrasonography (13.0%). Subsequently, 29.4% of the subjects were transferred to the ICU, and 27.2% died during hospitalization. Conclusions This physician-led MET cohort showed relatively high rates of intervention, including arterial line insertion and portable ultrasonography, and low ICU transfer rates. We presume that MET detects deteriorating patients earlier using a screening system and begins ICU-level management at the patient’s bedside without delay, eventually preventing the patient’s condition from worsening and transfer to the ICU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document