Effect of a 2-tier rapid response system on patient outcome and staff satisfaction

Abstract

The 2-tier RRS was accessed by staff to assist with care of deteriorating patients in a large, tertiary hospital. High levels of satisfaction have been reported by clinical staff.

How do nurses use early warning scoring systems to detect and act on patient deterioration to ensure patient safety? A scoping review

“…Table 1 provides a summary of the included studies. Of the 23 studies included in the review, 11 were qualitative (Rihari-Thomas et al, 2017;Petersen et al, 2017;McGaughey et al, 2017;Martland et al, 2016;Liaw et al, 2017;Kitto et al, 2015;Hart et al, 2016;Elliott et al, 2015;Donohue and Endacott, 2010;Currey et al, 2018;Burns et al, 2018), 8 were quantitative research studies (Davies et al, 2014;Douglas et al, 2016: Fox andElliott, 2015;Heal et al, 2017;Liaw et al, 2016;Ludikhuize et al, 2011;Osborne et al, 2016;Rattray et al, 2011) and 4 were of a mixed methodology (Aitken et al, 2015;Cherry and Jones, 2015;Shearer et al, 2012;Smith and Aitken, 2016).…”

“…The methods of the Quantitative studies involved surveys in five studies (Davies et al, 2014;Douglas et al, 2016;Fox and Elliott, 2015;Osborne et al, 2016: Rattray et al, 2011 and trials in the three other studies (Ludikhuize et al, 2011;Heal et al, 2017;Liaw et al, 2016). The methods used in the mixed methods studies included pre and post intervention, evaluation and interviews with clinicians (Aitken et al, 2015), data collected from questionnaires and focus groups (Cherry and Jones, 2015) and point in times audits and interviews with staff (Shearer et al, 2012;Smith and Aitken, 2016).…”

“…The name of the track and trigger charts vary throughout the studies with some studies examining more than one chart however the national early warning score and modified early warning score were the most common and were found in seven studies. Eight studies did not state which chart they were using or investigating often describing it as a standard early warning score or track and trigger chart (Aitken et al, 2015;Davies et al, 2014;Hart et al, 2016;Kitto et al, 2015;Liaw et al, 2016;Rihari-Thomas et al, 2017;Shearer et al, 2012;Smith & Aitken, 2016). Likewise, the names for rapid response team vary throughout the studies and included rapid response system, critical care outreach team and medical emergency team, however rapid response team was the most common and used in ten studies (Aitken et al, 2015;Davies et al, 2014;Douglas et al, 2016;Hart et al, 2016;Heal et al, 2017;Kitto et al, 2015;Ludikhuize et al, 2011;Martland et al, 2016;Rihari-Thomas et al, 2017).…”

Evaluating the effect of delayed activation of rapid response teams on patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol

“…However, another meta-analysis and the only multicenter randomized control trial to date have not found strong evidence to support the effectiveness of rapid response systems [ 2 , 3 ]. In many of these studies, the quality of the rapid response system as a systematic intervention itself has not been evaluated [ 17 – 20 ]. Previous reviews of rapid response systems have treated rapid response systems as if they were of equal quality and had comparable operating procedures [ 2 , 17 , 19 , 21 ].…”

Improving Providers Role Definitions to Decrease Overcrowding and Improve In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Response

“…2,3 Technical aspects such as quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) 4 and adherence to advanced cardiovascular life support protocols 5 have been linked to better outcomes, but less is known about how nontechnical factors such as team leadership and communication may improve survival. [6][7][8][9][10][11] Evidence from cardiac arrest simulation literature suggests that the absence of leadership and of clearly defined roles is associated with negative outcomes. [7][8][9][10][11][12] As part of a performance improvement project, we deconstructed code-team activations at our center and revised our process to include specific interventions targeted at providing clear roles for providers and improving our leadership structure.…”