Implementation of a rapid response system resulted in a non-significant reduction in the composite rate of cardiac arrests and/or unexpected deaths from 0.50% to 0.25% (OR 0.43) in surgical patients.
Observational (n=3,786)
No
Does the implementation of a rapid response system reduce cardiac arrests and unexpected deaths in surgical patients?
Implementation of a rapid response system in surgical patients resulted in a non-significant 50% reduction in cardiac arrests and unexpected deaths, but significantly increased unplanned ICU admissions.
Odds Ratio: 0.43 (95% CI 0.14–1.3)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.25% vs 0.5%
p-value: p=0.134
BACKGROUND: Rapid response systems (RRSs) are considered an important tool for improving patient safety. We studied the effect of an RRS on the incidence of cardiac arrests and unexpected deaths. METHODS: Retrospective before- after study in a university medical centre. We included 1376 surgical patients before (period 1) and 2410 patients after introduction of the RRS (period 2). Outcome measures were corrected for the baseline covariates age, gender and ASA. RESULTS: The number of patients who experienced a cardiac arrest and/or who died unexpectedly decreased non significantly from 0.50% (7/1376) in period 1 to 0.25% (6/2410) in period 2 (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, CI 0.14-1.30). The individual number of cardiac arrests decreased non-significantly from 0.29% (4/1367) to 0.12% (3/2410) (OR 0.38, CI 0.09-1.73) and the number of unexpected deaths decreased non-significantly from 0.36% (5/1376) to 0.17% (4/2410) (OR 0.42, CI 0.11-1.59). In contrast, the number of unplanned ICU admissions increased from 2.47% (34/1376) in period 1 to 4.15% (100/2400) in period 2 (OR 1.66, CI 1.07-2.55). Median APACHE ll score at unplanned ICU admissions was 16 in period 1 versus 16 in period 2 (NS). Adherence to RRS procedures. Observed abnormal early warning scores ≤72 h preceding a cardiac arrest, unexpected death or an unplanned ICU admission increased from 65% (24/37 events) in period 1 to 91% (91/101 events) in period 2 (p < 0.001). Related ward physician interventions increased from 38% (9/24 events) to 89% (81/91 events) (p < 0.001). In period 2, ward physicians activated the medical emergency team in 65% of the events (59/91), although in 16% (15/91 events) activation was delayed for one or two days. The overall medical emergency team dose was 56/1000 admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of an RRS resulted in a 50% reduction in cardiac arrest rates and/or unexpected death. However, this decrease was not statistically significant partly due to the low base-line incidence. Moreover, delayed activation due to the two-tiered medical emergency team activation procedure and suboptimal adherence of the ward staff to the RRS procedures may have further abated the positive results.
Simmes et al. (Sun,) conducted a observational in Surgical patients (n=3,786). Rapid response system (RRS) vs. Standard care before RRS implementation was evaluated on Cardiac arrest and/or unexpected death (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.14-1.30, p=0.134). Implementation of a rapid response system resulted in a non-significant reduction in the composite rate of cardiac arrests and/or unexpected deaths from 0.50% to 0.25% (OR 0.43) in surgical patients.