ArticleCureus2022
Impact of the Proactive Rounding Team on Rapid Response System During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Study From an Italian Medical Center.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of a critical care outreach team in a children's hospital.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- The associations between rapid response systems and their components with patient outcomes: A scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic a proactive rounding (PR) team was introduced in our clinical practice in order to recognize the clinical deterioration of the patient as soon as possible. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the PR team on the rapid response system (RRS) workload with particular regard to the activity carried out, the mode of intervention, and the outcome of patients.
methodsIn this retrospective study, the first period before the activation of the PR team (March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020) and the second period after its activation (March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021) were compared.
resultsA total of 406 inpatient RRS activations were collected. The medical emergency team (MET) dose was 13 and 12.2 activations/1000 admitted patients per year while the incidence of unexpected cardiac arrests was 3.8 and 2.6 events/1000 admitted patients per year (p=0.10). MET response time was longer in the second period (3.5±1.6 minutes vs 4.5±2.6 minutes p<0.01). We recorded more RRS activations for medical patients than surgical ones; MET was activated more frequently by physicians than nurses and for less severe criteria. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit had lower Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) scores.
conclusionsThe PR team introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic did not increase the RRS workload. In addition, it allowed an earlier activation of the MET, especially by physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.