Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20174916›Full record

ReviewDer Unfallchirurg2010

[Current concepts of patient safety: rapid response system].

P F Stahel, J K M Fakler, M A Flierl, K Moldenhauer, P S Mehler

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Unfallchirurg, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

P F StahelDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Department of Neurosurgery, Denver Health Medical Center, University of Colorado, School of Medicine, 777 Bannock Street, 80204, Denver, CO, USA. philip.stahel@dhha.org
J K M Fakler
M A Flierl
K Moldenhauer
P S Mehler
University of Colorado Denver · USDenver Health Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The "100,000 lives campaign" initiated a wide-spread implementation of rapid response teams in the United States. A standardized rapid response system (RRS) is designed to reduce the preventable mortality of hospitalized patients who frequently have progressive signs of physiological deterioration minutes to hours before cardiac arrest. The implementation and maturation of a team-based RRS has been shown to significantly reduce the incidence of "COR zero" calls and, in some studies, the in-hospital mortality rate. An alternative model to rapid response teams has been recently proposed which is based on defined clinical triggers to initiate a "rapid response escalation". This clinical triggers program overcomes the classic limitations of a team-based system, such as the overuse of resources and the fragmentation of patient care. The present review outlines the basic RRS concept with a focus on the debate related to the "perfect" patient safety system, namely the validity of a distinct rapid response teams approach versus a trigger-based escalation modality. The implementation of a standardized RRS should also be considered in German hospitals with the aim of improving patient safety and reducing preventable in-hospital mortality.

Indexed as

ForecastingEmergency Medical ServicesGermanyHospital Rapid Response TeamMedical ErrorsSafety ManagementTraumatologyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID20174916
OpenAlexW1534444714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.