Dataset Information

Rapid Response and Cardiac Arrest Teams: A Descriptive Analysis of 103 American Hospitals.

ABSTRACT: Despite improvements in the management of in-hospital cardiac arrest over the past decade, in-hospital cardiac arrest continues to be associated with poor prognosis. This has led to the development of rapid response systems, hospital-wide efforts to improve patient outcomes by centering on prompt identification of decompensating patients, expert clinical management, and continuous quality improvement of processes of care. The rapid response system may include cardiac arrest teams, which are centered on identification and treatment of patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, few evidence-based guidelines exist to guide the formation of such teams, and the degree of their variation across the United States has not been well described. Design:Descriptive cross-sectional, internet-based survey. Setting:Cohort of preidentified clinicians involved in their hospital's adult rapid response system across the United States. Subjects:Clinicians who had been identified by study team members using personal and professional contacts over a 7-month period from June 2018 to December 2018. Interventions:An 80-item survey was developed by the investigators. It sought information on the afferent (identification and notification of providers) and efferent (response of providers to patient) limbs of the rapid response system, as well as management of patients post in-hospital cardiac arrest. Measurements and Main Results:One-hundred fourteen surveys were distributed. Of these, 109 (96%) were completed. Six were duplicates and were excluded, leaving a total of 103 surveys from 103 hospitals in 30 states. Seventy-six percent of hospitals were academic, 30% were large hospitals (> 750 inpatient beds), and 58% had large ICUs (> 50 ICU beds). We found wide variation in the structure and function in both the afferent and efferent limbs of the rapid response system. The majority of hospitals had a rapid response team and a cardiac arrest team. Most rapid response teams contained a provider, a critical care nurse, and a respiratory therapist. In hospitals with training programs in internal medicine, anesthesia, emergency medicine, or critical care, 45% of rapid response teams and 75% of cardiac arrest teams were led by trainees, with inconsistent attending presence. Targeted temperature management and coronary catheterization were widely used post in-hospital cardiac arrest, but indications varied considerably. Conclusions:We have demonstrated substantial variation in the structure and function of rapid response systems as well as in management of patients during and after in-hospital cardiac arrest.

SUBMITTER: Mitchell OJL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7063949 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Hospitals often employ Medical Emergency Teams (METs) to respond to patients with acute physiological decline so as to prevent deaths from in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We determined the frequency of missed opportunities for MET evaluation, defined as no MET evaluation prior to IHCA despite evidence of severe vital sign abnormalities ?1 hour preceding cardiac arrest.Within Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation, we identified 21,913 patients from 274 hospitals with IHCA on general inpatient or telemetry floors who would be eligible for a MET evaluation prior to IHCA. We determined the proportion of patients with missed opportunities for MET evaluation, defined as no MET evaluation before IHCA despite at least 1 severe vital sign abnormality (pulse >150 or <30, respiratory rate >35 or <8, systolic blood pressure <80, and oxygen saturation <80%) 1, 2, and 4 hours before IHCA. The relationship between a hospital's proportion of missed opportunities for MET evaluation and its risk-standardized rate of survival to discharge for IHCA (derived using hierarchical linear regression models) was then evaluated.Overall, few (3,814 [17.4%]) patients with IHCA had a preceding MET evaluation, and the odds of a MET evaluation varied by >80% across hospitals (median, 14.6% [interquartile range, 9.1%-22.2%]; median odds ratio, 1.82). Vital sign data were available for 13,115 (72.5%) of the 18,099 patients without MET evaluation. Of these patients, 5,243 (40.0%), 4,078 (31.1%), and 1,767 (13.4%) had at least 1 severe vital sign abnormality ?1, 2, and 4 hours before IHCA, respectively. Hospitals with the highest proportion of unevaluated patients despite severe vital sign abnormalities 2 and 4 hours preceding cardiac arrest had the lowest IHCA survival rate (correlation of -0.14 [P = .04] and -0.16 [P = .01], respectively).Although METs are designed to prevent IHCA, many patients with severe vital sign abnormalities prior to IHCA did not have a MET evaluation, and hospitals with higher rates of unevaluated patients had lower IHCA survival. These findings suggest missed opportunities to efficiently use METs in current practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Although nurses must be able to respond quickly and effectively to cardiac arrest, numerous studies have demonstrated poor performance. Simulation is a promising learning tool for resuscitation team training but there are few studies that examine simulation for training defibrillation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (D-CPR) in teams from the nursing education perspective. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which nursing student teams follow the D-CPR-algorithm in a simulated cardiac arrest, and if observing a simulated cardiac arrest scenario and participating in the post simulation debriefing would improve team performance. METHODS: We studied video-recorded simulations of D-CPR performance in 28 nursing student teams. Besides describing the overall performance of D-CPR, we compared D-CPR performance in two groups. Group A (n = 14) performed D-CPR in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario, while Group B (n = 14) performed D-CPR after first observing performance of Group A and participating in the debriefing. We developed a D-CPR checklist to assess team performance. RESULTS: Overall there were large variations in how accurately the nursing student teams performed the specific parts of the D-CPR algorithm. While few teams performed opening the airways and examination of breathing correctly, all teams used a 30:2 compression: ventilation ratio.We found no difference between Group A and Group B in D-CPR performance, either in regard to total points on the check list or to time variables. CONCLUSION: We found that none of the nursing student teams achieved top scores on the D-CPR-checklist. Observing the training of other teams did not increase subsequent performance. We think all this indicates that more time must be assigned for repetitive practice and reflection. Moreover, the most important aspects of D-CPR, such as early defibrillation and hands-off time in relation to shock, must be highlighted in team-training of nursing students.

Dataset Information

Rapid Response and Cardiac Arrest Teams: A Descriptive Analysis of 103 American Hospitals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets