ArticleBMJ open2025
Rapid response teams and recommended ward-based management of acute deterioration: a single-centre retrospective cohort study in an inner-city London (UK) teaching hospital.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implementation of a Rapid Response System in a University Hospital: Impact on In-Hospital Mortality and Surgical Patient Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the associations between Rapid Response Team (RRT) patient review and other predefined clinical management actions, with risk of in-hospital cardiac arrest and in-hospital mortality in the first unplanned admission (UPA) to the adult intensive care unit (ICU) from the ward environment for each patient.To describe a novel RRT assessment tool for ward-based care for patients who were deteriorating.
designA retrospective cohort study.
settingA large multispecialty, tertiary referral and teaching hospital in England, UK.
participantsThe study included 3175 consecutive adult ICU UPAs from hospital wards over a 6-year period (2014-2019). OUTCOME MEASURES: Ward-based management of deterioration prior to ICU admission was assessed by the RRT, using a scored checklist-the UPA score. Admissions were compared in two groups according to their exposure to an RRT review in the 72 hours before ICU admission. Associations with in-hospital cardiac arrest within 24 hours before ICU admission and all-cause in-hospital mortality were estimated, using unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95%CI.
resultsRRT review occurred in 1413 (44.5%) admissions and was associated with reduced odds of in-hospital cardiac arrest (aOR 0.51; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.78; p<0.001), but similar odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; p=0.65). The median (IQR) UPA score was 1 (0 to 2), and each point increase was associated with increased odds of in-hospital cardiac arrest (aOR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.23; p<0.001) and in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.10; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; p<0.001). Among individual UPA score items, Nursing Escalation Failure, Blood Gas Omission and Laboratory Blood Omission were associated with increased odds of in-hospital cardiac arrest, whereas Delayed Vital Signs and Failure to Recognise Deterioration were associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An RRT review in the 72 hours prior to ICU admission was associated with reduced odds of in-hospital cardiac arrest but did not impact in-hospital mortality. Higher UPA scores were associated with increased incidence of both in-hospital cardiac arrest and in-hospital mortality. In addition, this study describes a novel and adaptable RRT scoring tool (the UPA score) for safety monitoring and quality improvement.
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.