Dataset Information

Using Medical Emergency Teams to detect preventable adverse events.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Medical Emergency Teams (METs), also known as Rapid Response Teams, are recommended as a patient safety measure. A potential benefit of implementing an MET is the capacity to systematically assess preventable adverse events, which are defined as poor outcomes caused by errors or system design flaws. We describe how we used MET calls to systematically identify preventable adverse events in an academic tertiary care hospital, and describe our surveillance results.

Methods

For four weeks we collected standard information on consecutive MET calls. Within a week of the MET call, a multi-disciplinary team reviewed the information and rated the cause of the outcome using a previously developed rating scale. We classified the type and severity of the preventable adverse event.

Results

We captured information on all 65 MET calls occurring during the study period. Of these, 16 (24%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16%-36%) were felt to be preventable adverse events. The most common cause of the preventable adverse events was error in providing appropriate therapy despite an accurate diagnosis. One service accounted for a disproportionate number of preventable adverse events (n = 5, [31%, 95% CI 14%-56%]).

Conclusions

Our method of reviewing MET calls was easy to implement and yielded important results. Hospitals maintaining an MET can use our method as a preventable adverse event detection system at little additional cost.

SUBMITTER: Iyengar A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2750180 | biostudies-literature | 2009

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using Medical Emergency Teams to detect preventable adverse events.

Iyengar Akshai A Baxter Alan A Forster Alan J AJ

Critical care (London, England) 20090730 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Medical Emergency Teams (METs), also known as Rapid Response Teams, are recommended as a patient safety measure. A potential benefit of implementing an MET is the capacity to systematically assess preventable adverse events, which are defined as poor outcomes caused by errors or system design flaws. We describe how we used MET calls to systematically identify preventable adverse events in an academic tertiary care hospital, and describe our surveillance results.<h4>Methods</ ...[more]

PMID: 19643017

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe ability to rule out or in a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome at emergency department (ED) presentation would be beneficial to patient care and the health care system. The clinical chemistry score (CCS) was evaluated in this context.MethodsThis diagnostic accuracy study evaluated 2 different ED cohorts with suspected acute coronary syndrome. For patients in cohort 1, who presented to the ED of 3 hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, between May and August 2013, retrospective measurements were taken using the Ortho Clinical Diagnostics high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) assay; for patients in cohort 2, who presented to the ED of the same 3 hospitals in Hamilton between November 2012 and February 2013, an ED cardiac presentation blood test panel was performed with the Abbott Diagnostics hs-cTnI assay. The sensitivity and specificity of the CCS (cut-offs of ≥ 1 and 5) and hs-cTnI alone (published cut-offs) were compared for MACE (composite of death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, revascularization) at 30 days for both cohorts and at 90 days for cohort 2.ResultsThe incidence of MACE at 30 days was higher in cohort 1 (n = 1058) (19.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.8%-22.2%) than in cohort 2 (n = 5974) (14.6%, 95% CI 13.6%-15.6%). In cohort 1, a CCS of 1 or above yielded a sensitivity of 99.5% (95% CI 97.3%-99.9%). The sensitivity with an Ortho hs-cTnI cut-off of 1 ng/L or above was 91.2% (95% CI 86.5%-95.7%). The specificity of a CCS of 5 (97.8%, 95% CI 96.5%-98.7%) was higher than when the overall 99th-percentile cut-off for the Ortho hs-cTnI assay (> 11 ng/L; 90.1%, 95% CI 87.9%-92.0%) was used. A similar pattern was observed in cohort 2 at 30 days and persisted at 90 days with the Abbott hs-cTnI assay.InterpretationThe CCS derived with 2 different hs-cTnI assays and ED populations yielded higher sensitivity and specificity estimates for MACE than hs-cTnI alone. An intervention study is needed to evaluate the impact of the CCS at both the patient and hospital levels.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01994577.

Project description:BackgroundOlder US adults often receive care from multiple ambulatory providers. Seeing multiple providers may be clinically appropriate but creates challenges for communication. Whether frailty is a risk factor for gaps in communication among older adults and subsequent preventable adverse events is unknown.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of community-dwelling US adults ≥ 65 years of age in the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study who attended an in-home study examination in 2013-2016 and completed a survey on experiences with healthcare in 2017-2018 (n = 5,024). Using 5 frailty indicators (low body mass index, exhaustion, slow walk, weakness, and history of falls), we characterized participants into 3 mutually exclusive groups: not frail (0 indicators), intermediate-frail (1-2 indicators), and frail (3-5 indicators). We used survey data on self-reported gaps in care coordination and self-reported adverse events that participants attributed to poor communication among providers (a drug-drug interaction, repeat testing, an emergency department visit, or a hospital admission).ResultsOverall, 2,398 (47.7%) participants were not frail, 2,436 (48.5%) were intermediate-frail, and 190 (3.8%) were frail. The prevalence of any gap in care coordination was 37.0%, 40.8%, and 51.1% among participants who were not frail, intermediate-frail and frail, respectively. The adjusted prevalence ratio (PR) for any gap in care coordination among intermediate-frail and frail versus not frail participants was 1.09 (95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.02-1.18) and 1.34 (95%CI 1.15-1.56), respectively. The prevalence of any preventable adverse event was 7.0%, 11.3% and 20.0% among participants who were not frail, intermediate-frail and frail, respectively. The adjusted PR for any preventable adverse event among those who were intermediate-frail and frail versus not frail was 1.47 (95%CI 1.22-1.77) and 2.24 (95%CI 1.60-3.14), respectively.ConclusionAmong older adults, frailty is associated with an increased prevalence for self-reported gaps in care coordination and preventable adverse events. Targeted interventions to address patient-reported concerns regarding care coordination among intermediate-frail and frail older adults may be warranted.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementation of medical emergency teams has been identified as a potential strategy to reduce hospital deaths, because these teams respond to patients with acute physiological decline in an effort to prevent in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, prior studies of the association between medical emergency teams and hospital mortality have been limited and typically have not accounted for preimplementation mortality trends. METHODS:Within the Pediatric Health Information System for freestanding pediatric hospitals, annual risk-adjusted mortality rates were calculated for sites between 2000 and 2015. A random slopes interrupted time series analysis then examined whether implementation of a medical emergency team was associated with lower-than-expected mortality rates based on preimplementation trends. RESULTS:Across 38 pediatric hospitals, mean annual hospital admission volume was 15?854 (range, 6684-33?024), and there were a total of 1?659?059 hospitalizations preimplementation and 4?392?392 hospitalizations postimplementation. Before medical emergency team implementation, hospital mortality decreased by 6.0% annually (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-0.96) across all hospitals. After medical emergency team implementation, hospital mortality continued to decrease by 6% annually (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.95), with no deepening of the mortality slope (ie, not lower OR) in comparison with the preimplementation trend, for the overall cohort (P=0.98) or when analyzed separately within each of the 38 study hospitals. Five years after medical emergency team implementation across study sites, there was no difference between predicted (hospital mean of 6.18 deaths per 1000 admissions based on preimplementation trends) and actual mortality rates (hospital mean of 6.48 deaths per 1000 admissions; P=0.57). CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of medical emergency teams in a large sample of pediatric hospitals in the United States was not associated with a reduction in hospital mortality beyond existing preimplementation trends.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency Care has previously been identified as an area of significant concern regarding the prevalence of Adverse Events (AEs). However, the majority of this focus has been on the in-hospital setting, with little understanding of the identification and incidence of AEs in the prehospital environment.MethodThe early development and testing of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) specific triggers for the identification of AEs and Harm has been previously described. To operationalise the Emergency Medical Services Trigger Tool (EMSTT), the processes developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement for use with the Global Trigger Tool were adapted to a prehospital emergency care setting. These were then applied using a stepwise approach to the analysis of 36 consecutive samples of patient care records over an 18-month period (n =?710). Inter-rater reliability was measured for each trigger item and level of Harm classification. Total Triggers per 10,000 Patient Encounters, AEs per 10,000 Patient Encounters and Harm per 10,000 Patient Encounters were measured. All measures were plotted on Statistical Process Control Charts.ResultsThere was a high level of inter-rater agreement across all items (range: 85.6-100%). The EMSTT found an average rate of 8.20 Triggers per 10,000 Patient Encounters, 2.48 AEs per 10,000 Patient Encounters and 0.34 Harm events per 10,000 Patient Encounters. Three triggers: Change in Systolic Blood Pressure Greater Than 20%; Temp?>?38 °C without subsequent reduction; and SpO2 <?94% without supplemental Oxygen or SpO2 <?85% without assisted ventilation accounted for 93% (n =?180) of the triggers found throughout the longitudinal analysis.DiscussionWith sufficient focus on implementation and data collection, as well as the inclusion of a contextually relevant system for classifying AE/Harm, the EMSTT represents a potentially successful strategy towards identifying the rate of AEs within EMS across a large patient population with limited commitment of time and resources.

Project description:While multiple studies have demonstrated variations in the quality of cancer care in the USA, payers are increasingly assessing structure-level and process-level measures to promote quality improvement. Hospital-acquired adverse events are one such measure and we examine their national trends after major cancer surgery.Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of a weighted-national estimate from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) undergoing major oncological procedures (colectomy, cystectomy, oesophagectomy, gastrectomy, hysterectomy, lung resection, pancreatectomy and prostatectomy). The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) were utilised to identify trends in hospital-acquired adverse events.Secondary and tertiary care, US hospitals in NIS PARTICIPANTS: A weighted-national estimate of 2 508 917 patients (>18 years, 1999-2009) from NIS.Hospital-acquired adverse events.324 852 patients experienced ?1-PSI event (12.9%). Patients with ?1-PSI experienced higher rates of in-hospital mortality (OR 19.38, 95% CI 18.44 to 20.37), prolonged length of stay (OR 4.43, 95% CI 4.31 to 4.54) and excessive hospital-charges (OR 5.21, 95% CI 5.10 to 5.32). Patients treated at lower volume hospitals experienced both higher PSI events and failure-to-rescue rates. While a steady increase in the frequency of PSI events after major cancer surgery has occurred over the last 10 years (estimated annual % change (EAPC): 3.5%, p<0.001), a concomitant decrease in failure-to-rescue rates (EAPC -3.01%) and overall mortality (EAPC -2.30%) was noted (all p<0.001).Over the past decade, there has been a substantial increase in the national frequency of potentially avoidable adverse events after major cancer surgery, with a detrimental effect on numerous outcome-level measures. However, there was a concomitant reduction in failure-to-rescue rates and overall mortality rates. Policy changes to improve the increasing burden of specific adverse events, such as postoperative sepsis, pressure ulcers and respiratory failure, are required.

Dataset Information

Using Medical Emergency Teams to detect preventable adverse events.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Using Medical Emergency Teams to detect preventable adverse events.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets