ArticleNursing in critical care2025
What Evidence is Available on Rapid Response Systems Across Europe? Findings From a Scoping Review.
Article in Nursing in critical care, 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.
- What Evidence is Available on Rapid Response Systems Across Europe? Findings From a Scoping Review.Nursing in critical care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid Response Systems (RRS) aim to implement systematic processes for the early detection and management of emergencies in hospitals. Exploring the current characteristics and organisation of RRS in Europe and evaluating clinical outcomes may help identify areas for improvement.
aimTo provide an overview of the studies conducted in Europe, summarising the characteristics of RRS, their organisational structure and the clinical outcomes documented to date. STUDY
designA scoping review was conducted according to the framework of Levac and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The review protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF); CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed and Scopus were then searched. Quantitative primary studies about RRS conducted in Europe and published in English were included.
resultsTwenty-three studies were found, of which 18 (78.3%) were published in the last 10 years. Eleven (47.8%) aimed to describe the function and activities of RRS, while 12 (52.2%) analysed patient outcomes and two (8.7%) the effectiveness, feasibility and costs of RRS. Heterogeneous organisational patterns of RRS emerged, including terminologies (Medical Emergency Team [MET], Rapid Response Team [RRT], Cardiac Arrest Team [CAT], Critical Care Outreach [CCO]), team composition, availability, activation systems and activities.
conclusionsThe number of RRS studies is increasing, especially to compare their organisational structure under heterogeneous terminologies. Future research should investigate the outcome variations between different RRS structures. In addition, guidelines that standardise the minimum data set in the field of RRS by also introducing registries could increase consistency between European practices and studies. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTISE: Knowledge of the current situation of RRS in Europe can serve as a basis for policies and benchmark models to promote better patient care. STUDY REGISTRATION: This scoping review was registered on Open Science Framework (OSF) on 3 August 2024 (https://osf.io/ekb95; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EKB95).
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.