ArticleBMC health services research2023
Reduction in omission events after implementing a Rapid Response System: a mortality review in a department of gastrointestinal surgery.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospitals worldwide have implemented Rapid Response Systems (RRS) to facilitate early recognition and prompt response by trained personnel to deteriorating patients. A key concept of this system is that it should prevent 'events of omission', including failure to monitor patients' vital signs, delayed detection, and treatment of deterioration and delayed transfer to an intensive care unit. Time matters when a patient deteriorates, and several in-hospital challenges may prevent the RRS from functioning adequately. Therefore, we must understand and address barriers for timely and adequate responses in cases of patient deterioration. Thus, this study aimed to investigate whether implementing (2012) and developing (2016) an RRS was associated with an overall temporal improvement and to identify needs for further improvement by studying; patient monitoring, omission event occurrences, documentation of limitation of medical treatment, unexpected death, and in-hospital- and 30-day mortality rates.
methodsWe performed an interprofessional mortality review to study the trajectory of the last hospital stay of patients dying in the study wards in three time periods (P1, P2, P3) from 2010 to 2019. We used non-parametric tests to test for differences between the periods. We also studied overall temporal trends in in-hospital- and 30-day mortality rates.
resultsFewer patients experienced omission events (P1: 40%, P2: 20%, P3: 11%, P = 0.01). The number of documented complete vital sign sets, median (Q1,Q3) P1: 0 (0,0), P2: 2 (1,2), P3: 4 (3,5), P = 0.01) and intensive care consultations in the wards ( P1: 12%, P2: 30%, P3: 33%, P = 0.007) increased. Limitations of medical treatment were documented earlier (median days from admission were P1: 8, P2: 8, P3: 3, P = 0.01). In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates decreased during this decade (rate ratios 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.98) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99)).
conclusionThe RRS implementation and development during the last decade was associated with reduced omission events, earlier documentation of limitation of medical treatments, and a temporal reduction in the in-hospital- and 30-day mortality rates in the study wards. The mortality review is a suitable method to evaluate an RRS and provide a foundation for further improvement.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered.
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.