Michael A. DeVita

Up to 17% of hospital admissions are complicated by serious adverse events unrelated to the patients presenting medical condition. Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) review patients during early phase of deterioration to reduce patient morbidity and mortality. However, reports of the efficacy of these teams are varied. The aims of this article were to explore the concept of RRT dose, to assess whether RRT dose improves patient outcomes, and to assess whether there is evidence that inclusion of a physician in the team impacts on the effectiveness of the team. A review of available literature suggested that the method of reporting RRT utilization rate, (RRT dose) is calls per 1,000 admissions. Hospitals with mature RRTs that report improved patient outcome following RRT introduction have a RRT dose between 25.8 and 56.4 calls per 1,000 admissions. Four studies report an association between increasing RRT dose and reduced in-hospital cardiac arrest rates. Another reported that increasing RRT dose reduced in-hospital mortality for surgical but not medical patients. The MERIT study investigators reported a negative relationship between MET-like activity and the incidence of serious adverse events. Fourteen studies reported improved patient outcome in association with the introduction of a RRT, and 13/14 involved a Physician-led MET. These findings suggest that if the RRT is the major method for reviewing serious adverse events, the dose of RRT activation must be sufficient for the frequency and severity of the problem it is intended to treat. If the RRT dose is too low then it is unlikely to improve patient outcomes. Increasing RRT dose appears to be associated with reduction in cardiac arrests. The majority of studies reporting improved patient outcome in association with the introduction of an RRT involve a MET, suggesting that inclusion of a physician in the team is an important determinant of its effectiveness.

Objective: To study the incidence, outcome and potentially avoidable causes of inpatient cardiopulmonary arrests in a hospital with a “mature” rapid response system (RRS). Design: Retrospective observational study of all cardiopulmonary arrest events in 2005. Setting: University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Presbyterian Hospital, a 730-bed academic, urban, tertiary care adult hospital in the USA. Interventions: None. Results: During the calendar year 2005, the 16th year since the establishment of a medical emergency team (MET)/RRS, the MET was activated 1942 times; 111 of these events were cardiopulmonary arrest events (3.26 arrest events/1000 patient admissions), and 1831 were non-arrest patient crisis events (53.8 crisis events/1000 patient admissions). A review of the 104 index cardiopulmonary arrest events revealed that 26 (25%) patients survived to discharge. Event survival decreased as the intensity of patient monitoring decreased (83% in intensive care units, 69% in monitored, and 36% in unmonitored units; p = 0.002), but the rate of subsequent inhospital death was higher in the more intensely monitored settings (60%, 38%, 23%, respectively; p = 0.022). Nineteen (18%) arrests were deemed to be “potentially avoidable”. Avoidable arrests were classified as: failure to adhere to established hospital patient care guideline or policy; inadequate monitoring or surveillance; or delays in dealing with patient needs including delay in MET/RRS activation. Conclusions: In spite of the high crisis event rate and a low rate of cardiac arrests, potentially avoidable cardiopulmonary arrests still occurred. According to the present study more cardiopulmonary arrest events might be avoided by better adherence to hospital patient care policies, by closer monitoring on floors and by preventing delays in addressing deterioration in patient condition.

Studies have established that physiologic instability and services mismatching precede adverse events in hospitalized patients. In response to these considerations, the concept of a Rapid Response System (RRS) has emerged. The responding team is commonly known as a medical emergency team (MET), rapid response team (RRT), or critical care outreach (CCO). Studies show that an RRS may improve outcome, but questions remain regarding the benefit, design elements, and advisability of implementing a MET system. In June 2005 an International Conference on Medical Emergency Teams (ICMET) included experts in patient safety, hospital medicine, critical care medicine, and METs. Seven of 25 had no experience with an RRS, and the remainder had experience with one of the three major forms of RRS. After preconference telephone and e-mail conversations by the panelists in which questions to be discussed were characterized, literature reviewed, and preliminary answers created, the panelists convened for 2 days to create a consensus document. Four major content areas were addressed: What is a MET response? Is there a MET syndrome? What are barriers to METS? How should outcome be measured? Panelists considered whether all hospitals should implement an RRS. Patients needing an RRS intervention are suddenly critically ill and have a mismatch of resources to needs. Hospitals should implement an RRS, which consists of four elements: an afferent, "crisis detection" and "response triggering" mechanism; an efferent, predetermined rapid response team; a governance/administrative structure to supply and organize resources; and a mechanism to evaluate crisis antecedents and promote hospital process improvement to prevent future events.