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.

Frequency and potential causes of non-beneficial Code Blue activations at a metropolitan teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Code Blue activations in patients who are not for resuscitation (NFR) may be regarded as non-beneficial and may cause harm to patients, relatives and hospital staff. AIMS: To estimate the prevalence of non-beneficial Code Blue calls in a metropolitan teaching hospital and identify modifiable factors that could be utilised to reduce these events. METHODS: The study consisted of two parts: (i) a retrospective analysis of all Code Blue activations over a 12-month period using prospectively collected data. Non-beneficial activations were defined as calls made in patients with a NFR order in either the current or any previous hospital admissions and (ii) an anonymous voluntary survey of staff who were present at a Code Blue activation. RESULTS: There were 186 Code Blue activations over the study period, with 48 (25.8%) defined as non-beneficial. Such patients had more comorbidities, previous hospitalisations and greater levels of frailty. Most non-beneficial calls occurred on general wards and more than three-quarters of patients had been reviewed by a consultant prior to the call. The survey determined that despite ward staff having a considerable degree of resuscitation experience, there were deficiencies in understanding of Code Blue criteria, the resuscitation status of patients under their care and the interpretation of goals of care. CONCLUSIONS: Over a quarter of Code Blue calls were deemed non-beneficial. Improving the visibility of NFR status and staff understanding of patient goals of care are needed, along with timely, proactive documentation of NFR status by experienced clinicians.

Acknowledgement and use of advance care directives and goals of care by emergency department staff: a mixed method post intervention study.

INTRODUCTION: Advance Care Planning (ACP) refers to a process that includes Advance Care Directives (ACD) and Goals of Care (GOC), a practice widely used for over three decades. Following the findings of an audit and a cross-sectional study in 2019 and 2021 respectively, we implemented several educational and other interventional strategies aimed at enhancing staff awareness and emphasizing the importance of recognizing and documenting of ACD/GOC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acknowledgement and use of ACD and GOC by Emergency Department (ED) staff following these interventions. METHOD: We used a mixed methods approach, incorporating both observational and cross-sectional designs with reflexive thematic analysis. Data extraction for the observational study took place between 1st April and 30th June 2023 focusing on a target population of randomly sampled adults aged ≥ 65 years. Demographics and other ACD and GOC related patients' clinical data were collected. Data collection for the cross-sectional study occurred between 19th July and 13th September 2023 targeting all ED staff. Information gathered included demographics, awareness about ACD and GOC, including storage location and implementation, as well as knowledge of Medical Treatment decision Makers (MTDM), a jurisdictional term identifying a person legally appointed to make healthcare decisions on behalf of someone who lacks decision-making capacity and other Victorian State legislative requirements were collected. RESULTS: In the observational period, 22,335 patients attended the ED and 19% (n = 6546) qualified for inclusion from which a sample of 308 patients were randomly extracted. We found ACD documents were noted in the medical records of 6.5% of the sample, fewer than 8% identified in our previous study. There was no correlation between ACD record availability and age (p = 0.054; CI ranging from - 0.065 to 7.768). The response rate for the cross-sectional survey was 12% (n = 340) in contrast to earlier study with 28% (n = 476) respondents. Staff knowledge and familiarity with ACD was 25% and GOC 45%. CONCLUSION: After implementing interventions in staff education and ACP awareness, we found that ACD documentation did not improve. However, GOC documentation increased in the context of heightened institutional awareness and integration into the Electronic Medical Records (EMR).

Listen to me, I really am sick! Patient and family narratives of clinical deterioration before and during rapid response system intervention.

AIM: To explore patient and family narratives about their recognition and response to clinical deterioration and their interactions with clinicians prior to and during Medical Emergency Team (MET) activations in hospital. BACKGROUND: Research on clinical deterioration has mostly focused on clinicians' roles. Although patients and families can identify subtle cues of early deterioration, little research has focused on their experience of recognising, speaking up and communicating with clinicians during this period of instability. DESIGN: A narrative inquiry. METHODS: Using narrative interviewing techniques, 33 adult patients and 14 family members of patients, who had received a MET call, in one private and one public academic teaching hospital in Melbourne, Australia were interviewed. Narrative analysis was conducted on the data. RESULTS: The core story of help seeking for recognition and response by clinicians to patient deterioration yielded four subplots: (1) identifying deterioration, recognition that something was not right and different from earlier; (2) voicing concerns to their nurse or by family members on their behalf; (3) being heard, desiring a response acknowledging the legitimacy of their concerns; and (4) once concerns were expressed, there was an expectation of and trust in clinicians to act on the concerns and manage the situation. CONCLUSION: Clinical deterioration results in an additional burden for hospitalised patients and families to speak up, seek help and resolve their concerns. Educating patients and families on what to be concerned about and when to notify staff requires a close partnership with clinicians. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Clinicians must create an environment that enables patients and families to speak up. They must be alert to both subjective and objective information, to acknowledge and to act on the information accordingly. REPORTING METHOD: The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines were used for reporting. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The consumer researcher was involved in design, data analysis and publication preparation.

Recommendations for clinical implementation of blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease.

Blood-based biomarkers (BBM) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are being increasingly used in clinical practice to support an AD diagnosis. In contrast to traditional diagnostic modalities, such as amyloid positron emission tomography and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, BBMs offer a more accessible and lower cost alternative for AD biomarker testing. Their unique scalability addresses the anticipated surge in demand for biomarker testing with the emergence of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) that require confirmation of amyloid pathology. To facilitate the uptake of BBMs in clinical practice, The Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease convened a BBM Workgroup to provide recommendations for two clinical implementational pathways for BBMs: one for current use for triaging and another for future use to confirm amyloid pathology. These pathways provide a standardized diagnostic approach with guidance on interpreting BBM test results. Integrating BBMs into clinical practice will simplify the diagnostic process and facilitate timely access to DMTs for eligible patients.

Considerations for widespread implementation of blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease.

Diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses significant challenges to health care, often resulting in delayed or inadequate patient care. The clinical integration of blood-based biomarkers (BBMs) for AD holds promise in enabling early detection of pathology and timely intervention. However, several critical considerations, such as the lack of consistent guidelines for assessing cognition, limited understanding of BBM test characteristics, insufficient evidence on BBM performance across diverse populations, and the ethical management of test results, must be addressed for widespread clinical implementation of BBMs in the United States. The Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease BBM Workgroup convened to address these challenges and provide recommendations that underscore the importance of evidence-based guidelines, improved training for health-care professionals, patient empowerment through informed decision making, and the necessity of community-based studies to understand BBM performance in real-world populations. Multi-stakeholder engagement is essential to implement these recommendations and ensure credible guidance and education are accessible to all stakeholders.

Validating older adult patient's Medical Treatment Decision Maker's (MTDM). A retrospective observational study with follow-up phone interview transcript.

A Medical Treatment Decision Maker (MTDM), also referred to as surrogate decision maker, by law, is to be appointed to make medical treatment decisions on behalf of a person who cannot make such decisions for themselves. In the Emergency Department (ED) and acute healthcare services, the clinicians' (nurses and doctors) ability to contact MTDMs is essential for patient care, particularly in time-critical situations. Our primary objective was to review the verification process and assess the accuracy of MTDM contact numbers in the Health Information System (HIS) to assess compliance with legislation. We used a quantitative method with retrospective observational study design and follow-up phone interview transcript. One hundred and fifty-nine participants were randomly selected of whom 76 % had MTDM. Patient advancing age had statistically significant association with the number of call attempts made to reach the listed MTDM (P = 0.043; CI, -3.541 to -0.057) and the MTDM's consent to participate (p = 0.023).

Use of point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest in the intensive care unit: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in the use of point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest, but few studies document its use in the intensive care unit. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesised this may reflect a low prevalence of use of point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest or negative attitudes towards its use. We aimed to determine the self-reported prevalence, attitudes towards, and barriers to use of point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest in the intensive care unit. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey over 3 months (08/08/2022-06/11/2022), of intensive care unit consultants and registrars in Victoria, Australia. Descriptive and mixed-methods analyses of Likert-type and free-text answers were performed. RESULTS: The response rate was 91/398 (22.8%), split evenly between consultants and registrars. There was a broad range of clinical and ultrasound experience. Only 22.4% (22/91) of respondents reported using point-of-care ultrasound 75-100% of the time during their management of cardiac arrest. Respondents rated the value they place in point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest 3 (interquartile range: 3-4) and that of a "skilled operator" 4 ((interquartile range; 4-5) on a 5-point scale. Free-text analysis suggested exclusion of "tamponade" (40/80 [50%] comments) as the most valuable use-case and "skill" as a personal barrier (20/73 [27.4%] comments). Personal and departmental barriers were not rated highly, although registrars perceived "lack of a structured training program" as a barrier. Respondents were equivocal in the value they gave point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest but saw greater value when conducted by a skilled operator. CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care ultrasound was reported to be infrequently used in cardiac arrest, mostly due to self-perceived skill and lack of a structured training program.

Frequency of and associations with alterations of medical emergency team calling criteria in a teaching hospital emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Medical emergency team (METs), activated by vital sign-based calling criteria respond to deteriorating patients in the hospital setting. Calling criteria may be altered where clinicians feel this is appropriate. Altered calling criteria (ACC) has not previously been evaluated in the emergency department (ED) setting. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (i) describe the frequency of ACC in a teaching hospital ED and the number and type of vital signs that were modified and (ii) associations between ACC in the ED and differences in the baseline patient characteristics and adverse outcomes including subsequent MET activations, unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and death within 72 h of admission. METHODS: Retrospective observational study of patients presenting to an academic, tertiary hospital ED in Melbourne, Australia between January 1st, 2019 and December 31st, 2019. The primary outcome was frequency and nature of ACC in the ED. Secondary outcomes included differences in baseline patient characteristics, frequency of MET activation, unplanned ICU admission, and mortality in the first 72 h of admission between those with and without ACC in the ED. RESULTS: Amongst 14 159 ED admissions, 725 (5.1%) had ACC, most frequently for increased heart or respiratory rate. ACC was associated with older age and increased comorbidity. Such patients had a higher adjusted risk of MET activation (odds ratio [OR]: 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.50-3.91, p = <0.001), unplanned ICU admission (OR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.17-3.14, p = 0.016), and death (OR: 3.87, 95% CI: 2.08-6.70, p = 0.020) within 72 h. CONCLUSIONS: ACC occurs commonly in the ED, most frequently for elevated heart and respiratory rates and is associated with worse patient outcomes. In some cases, ACC requires consultant involvement, more frequent vital sign monitoring, expeditious inpatient team review, or ICU referral.

Haemodynamic changes during prone versus supine position in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning improves oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to COVID-19. However, its haemodynamic effects are poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the acute haemodynamic changes associated with prone position in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. The primary objective was to describe changes in cardiac index with prone position. The secondary objectives were to describe changes in mean arterial pressure, FiO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and oxygen delivery (DO2) with prone position. METHODS: We performed this cohort-embedded study in an Australian intensive care unit, between September and November 2021. We included adult patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS, requiring mechanical ventilation and prone positioning for respiratory failure. We placed patients in the prone position for 16 h per session. Using pulse contour technology, we collected haemodynamic data every 5 min for 2 h in the supine position and for 2 h in the prone position consecutively. RESULTS: We studied 18 patients. Cardiac index, stroke volume index, and mean arterial pressure increased significantly in the prone position compared to supine position. The mean cardiac index was higher in the prone group than in the supine group by 0.44 L/min/m2 (95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.63) (P < 0.001). FiO2 requirement decreased significantly in the prone position (P < 0.001), with a significant increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio (P < 0.001). DO2 also increased significantly in the prone position, from a median DO2 of 597 mls O2/min (interquartile range, 504 to 931) in the supine position to 743 mls O2/min (interquartile range, 604 to 1075) in the prone position (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Prone position increased the cardiac index, mean arterial pressure, and DO2 in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. These changes may contribute to improved tissue oxygenation and improved outcomes observed in trials of prone positioning.

Are we deskilling or reskilling our hospital ward clinicians?

Rapid reponse teams emerged 27 years ago to identify deteriorating patients and reduce preventable harm. There are concerns that such teams have deskilled hospital staff. However, over the past 20 years, there have been marked changes in hospital care and workplace requirements for hospital staff. In this article, we contend that hospital staff have been reskilled rather than deskilled.

Epidemiology of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients admitted to the intensive care unit in Australia: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) affects approximately 3000 patients annually in Australia. Introduction of the National Standard for Deteriorating Patients in 2011 was associated with reduced IHCA-related intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and reduced in-hospital mortality of such patients. AIMS: To assess whether the reduction in IHCA-related ICU admissions from hospital wards seen following the implementation of the national standard (baseline period 2013-2014) was sustained over the follow-up period (2015-2019) in Australia. METHODS: A multi-centre retrospective cohort study to compare the characteristics and outcomes of IHCA admitted to the ICU between baseline and follow-up periods. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients admitted to ICU from the ward following IHCA. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital mortality of IHCA-related ICU admissions. Data were analysed using hierarchical multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The proportion of cardiac arrest-related admissions from the ward was lower in the follow-up period when compared to baseline (4.1 vs 3.8%; P = 0.04). Such patients had lower illness severity and were more likely to have limitations of medical treatment at admission. However, after adjustment for severity of illness, the likelihood of being admitted to ICU following cardiac arrest on the ward increased in the follow-up period (odds ratio (OR) 1.13 (1.05-1.22); P = 0.001). Hospital mortality was lower in the follow-up period (50.3 vs 46.3%; P = 0.02), but after adjustment the likelihood of death did not differ between the periods (OR 1.0 (0.86-1.17); P = 0.98). CONCLUSION: After adjustment for the severity of illness, the likelihood of being admitted to ICU after IHCA slightly increased in the follow-up period.

Non-beneficial resuscitation during inhospital cardiac arrests in a metropolitan teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition that a proportion of hospitalised patients receive non-beneficial resuscitation, with the potential to cause harm. AIM: To describe the prevalence of non-beneficial resuscitation attempts in hospitalised patients and identify interventions that could be used to reduce these events. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of all adult inhospital cardiac arrests (IHCA) receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in a teaching hospital over 9 years. Demographics and arrest characteristics were obtained from a prospectively collected database. Non-beneficial CPR was defined as CPR being administered to patients who had a current not-for-resuscitation (NFR) order in place or who had a NFR order enacted on a previous hospital admission. Further antecedent factors and resuscitation characteristics were collected for these patients. RESULTS: There were 257 IHCA, of which 115 (44.7%) occurred on general wards, with 19.8% of all patients surviving to discharge home. There were 39 (15.2%) instances of non-beneficial CPR, of which 28 (72%) of 39 occurred in unmonitored patients on the ward comprising nearly one-quarter (28/115) of all arrests in this patient group. A specialist had reviewed 30 (76.9%) of 39 of these patients, and 33.3% (13/39) had a medical emergency team (MET) review prior to their arrest. CONCLUSIONS: Over one in seven resuscitation attempts were non-beneficial. MET reviews and specialist ward rounds provide opportunities to improve the documentation and visibility of NFR status.

Low tidal volume ventilation for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a secondary analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: We recently reported the results for a large randomized controlled trial of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) versus conventional tidal volume (CTVV) during major surgery when positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) was equal between groups. We found no difference in postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients who received LTVV. However, in the subgroup of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, LTVV was associated with a numerically lower rate of PPCs after surgery. We aimed to further assess the relationship between LTVV versus CTVV during laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of this pre-specified subgroup. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with an applied PEEP of 5 cmH2O and either LTVV (6 mL/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) or CTVV (10 mL/kg PBW). The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of PPCs within seven days. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-eight patients (27.2%) underwent laparoscopic surgeries, with 158 (48.2%) randomised to LTVV. Fifty two of 157 patients (33.1%) assigned to LTVV and 72 of 169 (42.6%) assigned to conventional tidal volume developed PPCs within 7 days (unadjusted absolute difference, - 9.48 [95% CI, - 19.86 to 1.05]; p = 0.076). After adjusting for pre-specified confounders, the LTVV group had a lower incidence of the primary outcome than patients receiving CTVV (adjusted absolute difference, - 10.36 [95% CI, - 20.52 to - 0.20]; p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: In this post-hoc analysis of a large, randomised trial of LTVV we found that during laparoscopic surgeries, LTVV was associated with a significantly reduced PPCs compared to CTVV when PEEP was applied equally between both groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry no: 12614000790640.

Automated rapid response system activation-Impact on nurses' attitudes and perceptions towards recognising and responding to clinical deterioration: Mixed-methods study.

AIM: To explore general ward nurses' attitudes and perceptions towards recognising and responding to clinical deterioration in a hospital with automated rapid response system activation. BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in deploying automated clinical deterioration notification systems to reduce delayed or failed recognition and response to clinical deterioration of ward patients. However, little is known about its impact on ward nurses' perspectives and work patterns. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study. METHODS: Online survey of 168 registered nurses and individual interviews with 10 registered nurses in one acute hospital in Singapore. The study adhered to the STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies and the COREQ guidelines for qualitative studies. RESULTS: Many nurses (38.1%) rarely performed patient assessments or observations other than vital signs assessment to assess for early signs of clinical deterioration. About 30% were worried about being criticised for calling the primary team doctors. Four themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: automated rapid response system activation as a safety net, being more cautious with vital signs monitoring, the NEWS2 alone is inadequate, and ward nurses as the 'middleman' between the intensive care unit outreach nurse and primary team doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Although nurses value the automated rapid response system activation as a safety net to minimise delays in accessing urgent critical care resources, it does not address the sociocultural barriers inherent in escalation of care. Although the automated system led nurses to be more cautious with vital signs monitoring, it does not encourage them to perform comprehensive patient assessments to detect early signs of deterioration. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurse education on assessing for clinical deterioration should focus on the use of broader patient assessment skills other than vital signs. Sociocultural barriers to escalation of care remain a key issue that needs to be addressed by hospital management. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patients, service users, care-givers or members of the public were involved in the study.

Clinicians' use and perceptions of the pre-medical emergency team tier of one rapid response system: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The pre-medical emergency team (pre-MET) tier of rapid response systems facilitates early recognition and treatment of deteriorating ward patients using ward-based clinicians before a MET review is needed. However, there is growing concern that the pre-MET tier is inconsistently used. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore clinicians' use of the pre-MET tier. METHODS: A sequential mixed-methods design was used. Participants were clinicians (nurses, allied health, doctors) caring for patients on two wards of one Australian hospital. Observations and medical record audits were conducted to identify pre-MET events and examine clinicians' use of the pre-MET tier as per hospital policy. Clinician interviews expanded on understandings gained from observation data. Descriptive and thematic analyses were performed. RESULTS: Observations identified 27 pre-MET events for 24 patients that involved 37 clinicians (nurses = 24, speech pathologist = 1, doctors = 12). Nurses initiated assessments or interventions for 92.6% (n = 25/27) of pre-MET events; however, only 51.9% (n = 14/27) of pre-MET events were escalated to doctors. Doctors attended pre-MET reviews for 64.3% (n = 9/14) of escalated pre-MET events. Median time between escalation of care and in-person pre-MET review was 30 min (interquartile range: 8-36). Policy-specified clinical documentation was partially completed for 35.7% (n = 5/14) of escalated pre-MET events. Thirty-two interviews with 29 clinicians (nurses = 18, physiotherapists = 4, doctors = 7) culminated in three themes: Early Deterioration on a Spectrum, A Safety Net, and Demands Versus Resources. CONCLUSIONS: There were multiple gaps between pre-MET policy and clinicians' use of the pre-MET tier. To optimise use of the pre-MET tier, pre-MET policy must be critically reviewed and system-based barriers to recognising and responding to pre-MET deterioration addressed.

Pre-medical emergency team activations - Patient characteristics, outcomes and predictors of deterioration.

BACKGROUND: Pre-medical emergency team (MET) calls are an increasingly common tier of Rapid Response Systems, but the epidemiology of patients who trigger a Pre-MET is not well understoof. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the epidemiology and outcomes of patients who trigger a pre-MET activation and identify risk factors for further deterioration. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of pre-MET activations in a university-affiliated metropolitan hospital in Australia, between 13 April 2021 and 4 October 2021. A multivariable regression model was used to identify variables associated with further deterioration, defined as a MET call or Code Blue within 24 h of pre-MET activation. RESULTS: From a total of 39 664 admissions, there were 7823 pre-MET activations (197.2 per 1000 admissions). Compared to inpatients that did not trigger a pre-MET, the patients were older (68.8 vs 53.8 years, p < 0.001), were more likely to be male (51.0 vs 47.6%, p < 0.001), had an emergency admission (70.1% vs 53.3%, p < 0.001), and were under a medical specialty (63.7 vs 54.9%, p < 0.001). They had a longer hospital length of stay (5.6 vs 0.4 d, p < 0.001) and higher in-hospital mortality (3.4% vs 1.0%, p < 0.001). A pre-MET was more likely to progress to a MET call or Code Blue if it was activated for fever, cardiovascular, neurological, renal, or respiratory criteria (p < 0.001), if the patient was under a paediatric team (p = 0.018), or if there had been a MET call or Code Blue prior to the pre-MET activation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pre-MET activations affect almost 20% of hospital admissions and are associated with a higher risk of mortality. Certain characteristics may predict further deterioration to a MET call or Code Blue, suggesting the potential for early intervention via clinical decision support systems.

The frequency and nature of barriers to escalation of care in two Australian teaching hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Nurses and junior doctors are often the first clinicians to recognise signs of deterioration in patients. However, there can be barriers to having conversations about escalation of care. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to study the frequency and nature of barriers encountered during discussions related to escalation of care for deteriorating hospitalised patients. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study with daily experience sampling surveys related to escalation of care discussions. The study setting involved two teaching hospitals in Victoria, Australia. Consented doctors, nurses, and allied health staff members involved in routine care of adult ward patients participated in the study. The main outcome measures included the frequency of escalation conversations and the frequency and nature of barriers encountered during such conversations. RESULTS/FINDINGS: 31 clinicians participated in the study and completed an experience sampling survey 294 times, mean (standard deviation) = 9.48 (5.82). On 166 (56.6%) days, staff members were on clinical duties, and escalation of care discussions occurred on 67 of 166 (40.4%) of these days. Barriers to escalation of care occurred in 25 of 67 (37.3%) of discussions and most frequently involved lack of staff availability (14.9%), perceived stress in the contacted staff member (14.9%), perceptions of criticism (9.0%), being dismissed (7.5%), or indication of lack of clinical appropriateness in the response (6.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Discussions related to escalation of care by ward clinicians occur in almost half of clinical days and are associated with barriers in one-third of discussions. Interventions are needed to clarify roles and responsibilities and outline behavioural expectations on both sides of the conversation and enable respectful communication amongst individuals involved in discussions of escalation of patient care.

The epidemiology of rapid response team activation amongst patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Clinical deterioration requiring rapid response team (RRT) review is associated with increased morbidity amongst hospitalised patients. The frequency of and association with RRT calls in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery is unknown. Understanding the epidemiology of RRT calls might identify areas for quality improvement in this cohort. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to identify perioperative risks and outcome associations with RRT review following major gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic databases at a large Australian university hospital. We included adult patients admitted for major gastrointestinal surgery between 1 January 2015 and 31 March 2018. RESULTS: Of 7158 patients, 514 (7.4%) required RRT activation postoperatively. After adjustment, variables associated with RRT activation included the following: hemiplegia/paraplegia (odds ratio [OR]: 8.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3 to 27.8, p = 0.001), heart failure (OR: 6.9, 95% CI: 3.3 to 14.6, p < 0.001), peripheral vascular disease (OR: 5.3, 95% CI: 2.7 to 10.4, p < 0.001), peptic ulcer disease (OR: 4.2, 95% CI: 2.2 to 8.0, p < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 4.0, 95% CI: 2.2 to 7.2, p < 0.001), and emergency admission status (OR: 2.6, 95% CI: 2.1 to 3.3, p < 0.001). Following the index operation, 46% of first RRT activations occurred within 24 h of surgery and 61% had occurred within 48 h. The most common triggers for RRT activation were tachycardia, hypotension, and tachypnoea. Postoperative RRT activation was associated with in-hospital mortality (OR: 6.7, 95% CI: 3.8 to 11.8, p < 0.001), critical care admission (incidence rate ratio: 8.18, 95% CI: 5.23 to 12.77, p < 0.001), and longer median length of hospital stay (12 days vs. 2 days, p < 0.001) compared to no RRT activation. CONCLUSION: After major gastrointestinal surgery, one in 14 patients had an RRT activation, almost half within 24 h of surgery. Such activation was independently associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Identified associations may guide more pre-emptive management for those at an increased risk of RRT activation.