Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU: 2023.

RATIONALE: Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care hospitals have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients. PANEL DESIGN: The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. METHODS: We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs). RESULTS: The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among unselected patients. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Executive Summary: Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU.

RATIONALE: Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care facilities have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients. PANEL DESIGN: The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs). RESULTS: The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among "unselected" patients due to the absence of data regarding the benefit and the potential harms of false positive alarms, the risk of alarm fatigue, and cost. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system (GPS). CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Review of 20 Years of Continuous Quality Improvement of a Rapid Response System, at Four Institutions, to Identify Key Process Responsible for Its Success.

Rapid response systems are still in development, and their practices vary significantly from hospital to hospital. Although the literature supports their value and a four-arm structure, it is unclear within these arms (efferent, afferent, quality assurance, administrative arms) which processes and procedures are responsible for their efficacy. This article reports the evolution of a rapid response system over many years at four institutions and considers the key elements that likely contribute to its efficacy. METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of the processes, procedures, and outcomes of an adult general-ward rapid response system as it evolved, at four nonaffiliated community medical centers, spanning 2 decades of development and refinement. System and patient outcomes examined included the number of rapid response system activations/1,000 admissions, time to rapid response system activation and/or interventions, cardiac arrest rate, and/or hospital mortality over time. RESULTS: In the three hospitals that collected control and intervention data, there was significant increase in earlier and total number of rapid response system activations, more rapid administration of protocolized interventions, and associated decreases in cardiac arrest rate and hospital mortality of the respective population. In all four institutions three important common rapid response system processes were identified: early identification of at-risk patient using a novel focused bedside-assessment tool, leading to classification of the pathophysiologic process, linked to goal-directed intervention protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Our review of a rapid response system that evolved over 20 years across four unrelated institutions revealed a common care pathway that coupled a focused bedside at-risk patient assessment leading to pathophysiologic classification of the patients decline linked to goal-directed intervention protocols. We speculate that the improved outcomes observed are a consequence of effective implementation and coupling of these three processes, as they are important in identifying and treating early the signs of tissue hypoxia and hypoperfusion, which remain the basic pathophysiologic threats of acute deterioration.

Capillary refill time as part of an early warning score for rapid response team activation is an independent predictor of outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Capillary refill time (CRT) is easy, quick to perform and when prolonged in critical illness, correlates with progression of organ failure and mortality. It is utilized in our hospital's early warning score (EWS) as one of 11 parameters. We sought to define CRT's value in predicting patient outcomes, compared to the remaining EWS elements. METHODS: Five-year prospective observational study of 6480 consecutive Rapid Response Team (RRT) patients. CRT measured at the index finger was considered prolonged if time to previous-color return was >3 s. We analyzed the odds ratio of normal vs prolonged-CRT, compared to the other EWS variables, to individual and combined outcomes of mortality, cardiac arrest and higher-level of care transfer. RESULTS: Twenty-percent (N = 1329) of RRT-patients had prolonged-CRT (vs normal-CRT), were twice as likely to die (36% vs 17.8%, p < .001), more likely to experience the combined outcome (72.1% vs 54.2%, p < .001) and had longer hospital length of stays, 15.3 (SD 0.3) vs 13.5 days (SD 0.5) (p < .001). Multivariable logistic regression for mortality ranked CRT second to hypoxia among all 11 variables evaluated (p < 001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first time CRT has been evaluated in RRT patients. Its measurement is easy to perform and proves useful as an assessment of adult patients at-risk for clinical decline. Its prolongation in our population was an independent predictor of mortality and the combined outcome. This study and others suggest that CRT should be considered further as a fundamental assessment of patients at-risk for clinical decline.

A review of early warning systems for prompt detection of patients at risk for clinical decline.

Early Warning Scores (EWS) are a composite evaluation of a patient's basic physiology, changes of which are the first indicators of clinical decline and are used to prompt further patient assessment and when indicated intervention. These are sometimes referred to as "track and triggers systems" with tracking meant to denote periodic observation of physiology and trigger being a predetermined response criteria. This review article examines the most widely used EWS, with special attention paid to those used in military and trauma populations.The earliest EWS is the Modified Early Earning Score (MEWS). In MEWS, points are allocated to vital signs based on their degree of abnormality, and summed to yield an aggregate score. A score above a threshold would elicit a clinical response such as a rapid response team. Modified Early Earning Score was subsequently followed up with the United Kingdom's National Early Warning Score, the electronic cardiac arrest triage score, and the 10 Signs of Vitality score, among others.Severity of illness indicators have been in military and civilian trauma populations, such as the Revised Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score, and Trauma and Injury Severity. The sequential organ failure assessment score and its attenuated version quick sequential organ failure assessment were developed to aggressively identify patients near septic shock.Effective EWS have certain characteristics. First, they should accurately capture vital signs information. Second, almost all data should be derived electronically rather than manually. Third, the measurements should take into consideration multiple organ systems. Finally, information that goes into an EWS must be captured in a timely manner. Future trends include the use of machine learning to detect subtle changes in physiology and the inclusion of data from biomarkers. As EWS improve, they will be more broadly used in both military and civilian environments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Review article, level I.

A Novel Bedside-Focused Ward Surveillance and Response System.

BACKGROUND: Rapid response systems (RRSs) have been universally adopted in much of the developed world; yet, despite broad implementation, their success has often been limited. Even with successful systems, there is a small body of evidence regarding effective organizational elements that are responsible for improved outcomes. New organizational processes were implemented that restructured the existing RRS, and the impact on the number of rapid response team (RRT) alerts, cardiac arrest, and mortality rates was evaluated. METHODS: A prospective five-year before-and-after comparison of adult ward patient outcomes was conducted at a community regional medical center. The key intervention was expanded administrative oversight of the system, which led to (1) restructuring the content and depth of ward nurse education regarding early recognition of at-risk patients; (2) system changes empowering prompt mobilization of the RRT; (3) development of RRT treatment protocols; and (4) a more frequent and comprehensive data collection and analysis for system compliance and performance improvement. RESULTS: Some 28,914 patients were observed in the 24-month control period, and 39,802 patients were observed in the 33-month intervention period. RRT activations increased from 10.2 to 48.8/1,000 discharges (p <0.001), ward cardiac arrest decreased from 3.1 to. 2.4/1000 discharges (p = 0.04), hospital mortality decreased from 3.8% to 3.2% (p <0.001), and the observed-to-expected ratio decreased from 1.5 to 1.0 (p <0.001). CONCLUSION: Expanded administrative involvement of an existing RRS that focused on early recognition of patient deterioration by the bedside nurse led to improved performance of the system, with a significant increase in number of RRTs and decreases in cardiac arrests and hospital mortality.

Make vital signs great again - A call for action.

Vital signs are the simplest, cheapest and probably the most important information gathered on patients in hospital. In this narrative review we present a large amount of evidence that vital signs are currently little valued, not regularly or accurately recorded, and frequently not acted on appropriately. It is probable that few hospitals would keep their accreditation with regulatory bodies if they collected and acted on their laboratory results in the same way that they collect and act on vital signs. Professional societies and regulatory bodies need to address this issue: if vital signs were more accurately and frequently measured, and acted on promptly and appropriately hospital care would be safer, better and cheaper.

A systems approach to the early recognition and rapid administration of best practice therapy in sepsis and septic shock.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The early recognition and treatment of sepsis is paramount to reducing the mortality of this disease. However, unlike trauma, stroke or acute myocardial infarction, the initial signs of sepsis are subtle and easily missed by clinicians. Thus, hospital-based systems are needed to identify and triage patients who might be septic. This review focuses on the early diagnosis of sepsis and the implementation of a systems-based approach to help coordinate the identification and treatment of patients with this disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Alterations in traditional hemodynamic parameters, such as blood pressure and heart rate, are poor predictors of the presence of septic shock. Other more subtle findings (such as the 10 signs of vitality) are stronger determinants of poor tissue perfusion in a patient who may be septic. Early detection of a patient who is 'in trouble' on the ward by bedside nurses or physicians and activation of a medical emergency team has been shown to improve outcome. By coupling the medical emergency team with early goal-directed therapy, patients with sepsis can be discovered earlier and have therapy instituted within the so-called 'golden hour', first appreciated with trauma care. SUMMARY: The institution of a rapid response system for the detection and treatment of septic shock requires a multidisciplinary approach. The infrastructure to create such a system must be facilitated by administrators and implemented by front-line healthcare providers. Continuous assessment of the outcome benefit of such a system by a quality assurance team is the final part of a truly integrated approach to sepsis treatment.

Effect of a rapid response system for patients in shock on time to treatment and mortality during 5 years.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of nontraumatic shock is often delayed or inadequate due to insufficient knowledge or skills of front-line healthcare providers, limited hospital resources, and lack of institution-wide systems to ensure application of best practice. As a result, mortality from shock remains high. We designed a study to determine whether outcomes will be improved by a hospital-wide system that educates and empowers clinicians to rapidly identify and treat patients in shock with a multidisciplinary team using evidenced-based protocols. DESIGN: Single-center trial before and after implementation of a hospital-wide rapid response system for early identification and treatment of patients in shock. SETTING: A 180-bed regional referral center in northern California. PATIENTS: A total of 511 adult patients who met criteria for shock during a 7-yr period. INTERVENTIONS: We designed a rapid response system that included a comprehensive educational program for clinicians on earlier recognition of shock, empowerment of front-line providers using specific criteria to initiate therapy, mobilization of the rapid response team, protocol goal-directed therapy, and early transfer to the intensive care unit. Outcome feedback was provided to foster adoption. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured times to key interventions and hospital mortality 2.5 yrs before and until 5 yrs after system initiation. Times to interventions and mortality decreased significantly over time before and after adjusting for confounding factors. Interventions times, including shock alert activation, infusion of 2 L of fluid, central venous catheter placement, and antibiotic administration, were significant predictors of mortality (p < .05). Overall and septic subgroup mortality decreased from before system implementation through protocol year 5 from 40% to 11.8% and from 50% to 10%, respectively (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Over time, a rapid response system for patients in shock continued to reduce time to treatment, resulting in a continued decrease in mortality. By year 5, only three patients needed to be treated to save one additional life.

A multidisciplinary community hospital program for early and rapid resuscitation of shock in nontrauma patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a community hospital-wide program enabling nurses and prehospital personnel to mobilize institutional resources for the treatment of patients with nontraumatic shock. DESIGN: Historically controlled single-center study. SETTING: A 180-bed community hospital. PATIENTS: Patients in shock who were candidates for aggressive therapy. INTERVENTIONS: From January 1998 to May 31, 2000, patients in shock received standard therapy (control group). During the month of June 2000, intensive education of all health-care providers (ie, prehospital personnel, nurses, and physicians) took place. From July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, patients in shock (protocol group) were managed with a hospital-wide shock program. The program included early recognition of shock and the initiation of therapy by nonphysicians. Frontline personnel mobilized a shock team, which used goal-directed resuscitation protocols, early intensivist involvement, and rapid transfer to the ICU where protocols specific to shock etiology were implemented. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-six and 103 patients, respectively, were enrolled in the control and protocol groups. Baseline characteristics were similar. The protocol group had significant reductions in the median times to interventions, as follows: intensivist arrival, 2:00 h to 50 min (p < 0.002); ICU/operating room admission, 2 h 47 min to 1 h 30 min (p < 0.002); 2 L fluid infused, 3 h 52 min to 1 h 45 min (p < 0.0001); and pulmonary artery catheter placement, 3 h 50 min to 2 h 10 min (p 0.02). Good outcomes (ie, discharged to home or to a rehabilitation center) were more likely in the protocol group than in the control group (p = 0.02). The hospital mortality rate was 40.7% in the control group and 28.2% in the protocol group (p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: Similar to current practice in patients who have experienced trauma or cardiac arrest, the empowerment of nonphysician providers to mobilize hospital resources for the care of patients with shock is effective. A community hospital program incorporating the education of providers, the activation of a coordinated team response, and early goal-directed therapy expedited appropriate treatment and was temporally associated with improved outcomes. Randomized multicenter trials are needed to further assess the impact of the shock program on outcomes.

Utility of impedance cardiography to determine cardiac vs. noncardiac cause of dyspnea in the emergency department.

Determining the correct diagnosis of patients with dyspnea can be challenging. Early and accurate determination of the cause of dyspnea is vital in instituting timely and appropriate interventions. Hemodynamic parameters may aid in the evaluation of dyspnea, but are difficult to assess by physical exam. Impedance cardiography (ICG) is a newly validated method of determining hemodynamic parameters noninvasively. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy in differentiating cardiac from noncardiac causes of dyspnea utilizing ICG-derived hemodynamic parameters compared with that of emergency department (ED) physicians after initial history, physical, and laboratory tests. The final diagnosis, which was made retrospectively after review of the patient's hospital record by a senior ED physician blinded to the ICG data, was compared with the treating ED physician's and the ICG diagnoses. Thirty-eight patients who presented with dyspnea to a community ED were included in the study. There were significant differences in values of cardiac index by ICG (2.2 vs. 3.1; p<0.0001), systolic time ratio (0.52 vs. 0.37; p<0.01) and velocity index (32.9 vs. 42.7; p<0.01) between the cardiac and noncardiac groups, respectively. ICG measurements demonstrated greater sensitivity (92 vs. 83%), specificity (88 vs. 77%), and positive and negative predictive values (79 vs. 63% and 96 vs. 91%, respectively) compared with the ED physician in distinguishing cardiac from noncardiac cause of dyspnea. ICG can aid ED physicians in making more rapid and accurate determinations of cardiac vs. noncardiac cause of dyspnea.