Patients Who Decompensate and Trigger Rapid Response Immediately Upon Hospital Admission Have Higher Mortality Than Equivalent Patients Without Rapid Responses.

BACKGROUND: Rapid response teams (RRTs) have impacted the management of decompensating patients, potentially improving mortality. Few studies address the significance of RRT timing relative to hospital admission. We aimed to identify outcomes of adult patients who trigger immediate RRT activation, defined as within 4 hours of admission and compare with RRT later in admission or do not require RRT activation, and identify risk factors that predispose toward immediate RRT activation. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed using an RRT activation database, comprising 201,783 adult inpatients at an urban, academic, tertiary care hospital. This group was subdivided by timing of RRT activation regarding admission: within the first 4 hours (immediate RRT), between 4 and 24 hours (early RRT), and after 24 hours (late RRT). The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Individuals triggering an immediate RRT were compared with demographically matched controls. Mortality was adjusted for age, Quick Systemic Organ Failure Assessment score, intensive care unit admission, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: Patients with immediate RRT had adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality of 7.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6%-8.5%) and death odds ratio of 3.27 (95% CI, 2.5-4.3) compared with those who did not (mortality, 2.9%; 95%CI, 2.8%-2.9%; P < 0.0001). Patients triggering an immediate RRT were more likely to be Black, be older, and have higher Quick Systemic Organ Failure Assessment scores than those who did not trigger RRT activation. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, patients who require immediate RRT experienced higher 28-day all-cause mortality, potentially because of evolving or unrecognized critical illness. Further exploring this phenomenon may create opportunities for improved patient safety.

Collaborative practice: development, implementation, and evaluation of a weaning protocol for patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Use of protocols to reduce weaning time for patients receiving mechanical ventilation helps reduce cost and length of stay. However, implementation of this type of protocol is not easy and requires a consistent collaborative effort. OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic approach to the weaning process by developing, implementing, and evaluating a protocol for weaning patients from mechanical ventilation in a medical respiratory intensive care unit. METHODS: The weaning protocol used was a modification of a protocol developed by Ely et al. Modifications included a more aggressive approach in proceeding to the spontaneous breathing trial, inclusion of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, and documentation of the production of secretions. RESULTS: Implementation of the protocol significantly reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation as measured by 8-hour shifts and ventilator days. Although length of stay in the intensive care unit was not significantly reduced (P = .29), a continuing downward trend occurred, from a mean of 8.6 days before the protocol was implemented to 7.9 days during the last 6 months of data collection (P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: The need to provide efficient care requires the collaboration of all disciplines involved in providing patients' care. The weaning protocol introduced in this study demonstrates the benefits of using a collaborative team to identify best practices and implement them in a practice setting.