Patient outcomes following medical emergency team review on general wards: Development of predictive models

Abstract Aim To develop and internally validate risk prediction models for subsequent clinical deterioration, unplanned ICU admission and death among ward patients following medical emergency team (MET) review. Design A retrospective cohort study of 1500 patients who remained on a general ward following MET review at an Australian quaternary hospital. Method Logistic regression was used to model (1) subsequent MET review within 48 h, (2) unplanned ICU admission within 48 h and (3) hospital mortality. Models included demographic, clinical and illness severity variables. Model performance was evaluated using discrimination and calibration with optimism‐corrected bootstrapped estimates. Findings are reported using the TRIPOD guideline for multivariable prediction models for prognosis or diagnosis. There was no patient or public involvement in the development and conduct of this study. Results Within 48 h of index MET review, 8.3% ( n = 125) of patients had a subsequent MET review, 7.2% ( n = 108) had an unplanned ICU admission and in‐hospital mortality was 16% ( n = 240). From clinically preselected predictors, models retained age, sex, comorbidity, resuscitation limitation, acuity‐dependency profile, MET activation triggers and whether the patient was within 24 h of hospital admission, ICU discharge or surgery. Models for subsequent MET review, unplanned ICU admission, and death had adequate accuracy in development and bootstrapped validation samples. Conclusion Patients requiring MET review demonstrate complex clinical characteristics and the majority remain on the ward after review for deterioration. A risk score could be used to identify patients at risk of poor outcomes after MET review and support general ward clinical decision‐making. Relevance to clinical practice Our risk calculator estimates risk for patient outcomes following MET review using clinical data available at the bedside. Future validation and implementation could support evidence‐informed team communication and patient placement decisions.