Key result
The implementation of medical emergency teams was associated with a reduction in post-cardiac arrest ICU admissions in both MET and non-MET hospitals, with no reduction in hospital mortality.
Why the study?
Does the introduction of medical emergency teams (METs) reduce post-cardiac arrest ICU admissions, ICU readmissions, and hospital mortality compared to hospitals without METs?
Does the introduction of medical emergency teams (METs) reduce post-cardiac arrest ICU admissions, ICU readmissions, and hospital mortality compared to hospitals without METs?
This commentary highlights that while medical emergency teams are widely implemented, evidence for their efficacy in reducing mortality or ICU readmissions remains complex and confounded by unmeasured processes of care and hospital contexts.
The philosophy behind medical emergency teams (METs) or rapid response teams leaving the intensive care unit (ICU) to evaluate and treat patients who are at risk on the wards and to prevent or rationalise admission to the ICU is by now well established in many health care systems. In a previous issue of Critical Care, Jones and colleagues report their analysis of the impact on outcomes of METs in hospitals in Australasia and link this to reports appearing in the world literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
England et al. (2008) conducted an editorial in In-hospital cardiac arrest. Medical emergency teams (METs) vs. No medical emergency team was evaluated on Number and rate of post-cardiac arrest ICU admissions. The implementation of medical emergency teams was associated with a reduction in post-cardiac arrest ICU admissions in both MET and non-MET hospitals, with no reduction in hospital mortality.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: