The third Medical Emergency Teams - Hospital outcomes in a day (METHOD3) study: The application of quality metrics for rapid response systems around the world.

Aim: This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the readiness of international hospitals to implement consensus-based quality metrics for rapid response systems (RRS) and evaluate the feasibility of collecting these metrics. Methods: A digital survey was developed and distributed to hospital administrators and clinicians worldwide. The survey captured data on the recommended quality metrics for RRS and collected information on hospital characteristics. Statistical analysis included descriptive evaluations and comparisons by country and hospital type. Results: A total of 109 hospitals from 11 countries participated in the survey. Most hospitals had some form of RRS in place, with multiple parameter track and trigger systems being commonly used. The survey revealed variations in the adoption of quality metrics among hospitals. Metrics related to patient-activated rapid response and organizational culture were collected less frequently. Geographical differences were observed, with hospitals in Australia and New Zealand demonstrating higher adoption of core quality metrics. Urban hospitals reported a lower number of recorded metrics compared to metropolitan and rural hospitals. Conclusion: The study highlights the feasibility of collecting consensus-based quality metrics for RRS in international hospitals. However, variations in data collection and adoption of specific metrics suggest potential barriers and the need for further exploration. Standardized quality metrics are crucial for effective RRS functioning and continuous improvement in patient care. Collaborative initiatives and further research are needed to overcome barriers, enhance data collection capabilities, and facilitate knowledge sharing among healthcare providers to improve the quality and safety of RRS implementation globally.

Value of improving patient safety: health economic considerations for rapid response systems-a rapid review of the literature and expert round table.

OBJECTIVES: Failure to rescue deteriorating patients in hospital is a well-researched topic. We aimed to explore the impact of safer care on health economic considerations for clinicians, providers and policymakers. DESIGN: We undertook a rapid review of the available literature and convened a round table of international specialists in the field including experts on health economics and value-based healthcare to better understand health economics of clinical deterioration and impact of systems to reduce failure to rescue. RESULTS: Only a limited number of publications have examined the health economic impact of failure to rescue. Literature examining this topic lacked detail and we identified no publications on long-term cost outside the hospital following a deterioration event. The recent pandemic has added limited literature on prevention of deterioration in the patients' home.Cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency are dependent on broader system effects of adverse events. We suggest including the care needs beyond the hospital and loss of income of patients and/or their informal carers as well as sickness of healthcare staff exposed to serious adverse events in the analysis of adverse events. They are likely to have a larger health economic impact than the direct attributable cost of the hospital admission of the patient suffering the adverse event. Premorbid status of a patient is a major confounder for health economic considerations. CONCLUSION: In order to optimise health at the population level, we must limit long-term effects of adverse events through improvement of our ability to rapidly recognise and respond to acute illness and worsening chronic illness both in the home and the hospital.

Quality metrics for the evaluation of Rapid Response Systems: Proceedings from the third international consensus conference on Rapid Response Systems.

BACKGROUND: Clinically significant deterioration of patients admitted to general wards is a recognized complication of hospital care. Rapid Response Systems (RRS) aim to reduce the number of avoidable adverse events. The authors aimed to develop a core quality metric for the evaluation of RRS. METHODS: We conducted an international consensus process. Participants included patients, carers, clinicians, research scientists, and members of the International Society for Rapid Response Systems with representatives from Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia and the US. Scoping reviews of the literature identified potential metrics. We used a modified Delphi methodology to arrive at a list of candidate indicators that were reviewed for feasibility and applicability across a broad range of healthcare systems including low and middle-income countries. The writing group refined recommendations and further characterized measurement tools. RESULTS: Consensus emerged that core outcomes for reporting for quality improvement should include ten metrics related to structure, process and outcome for RRS with outcomes following the domains of the quadruple aim. The conference recommended that hospitals should collect data on cardiac arrests and their potential predictability, timeliness of escalation, critical care interventions and presence of written treatment goals for patients remaining on general wards. Unit level reporting should include the presence of patient activated rapid response and metrics of organizational culture. We suggest two exploratory cost metrics to underpin urgently needed research in this area. CONCLUSION: A consensus process was used to develop ten metrics for better understanding the course and care of deteriorating ward patients. Others are proposed for further development.

Different Perspectives on Predictability and Preventability of Surgical Readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Although unscheduled readmissions are increasingly being used as a quality indicator, only few readmission studies have focused on surgical patient populations. METHODS: An observational study "CURIOS@" was performed at three centers in the Netherlands. Readmitted patients and treating doctors were surveyed to assess the discharge process during index admission and their opinion on predictability and preventability of the readmission. Risk factors associated with predictability and preventability as judged by patients and their doctor were identified. Cohen's kappa was calculated to measure pairwise agreement of considering readmission as predictable/preventable. PRISMA root cause categories were used to qualify the reasons for readmission. RESULTS: In 237 unscheduled surgical readmissions, more patients assessed their readmissions to be likely preventable compared with their treating doctors (28.7% versus 6.8%; kappa, 0.071). This was also reflected in poor consensus about risk factors and root causes of these readmissions. When patients reported that they did not feel ready for discharge or requested their doctor to allow them to stay longer at discharge during index admission, they deemed their readmission more likely predictable and preventable. Doctors focused on measurable factors such as the clinical frailty scale and biomarkers during discharge process. Health-care worker failures were strongly associated with preventable readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no consensus between readmitted patients and treating doctors about predictability and preventability of readmissions, nor about associated risk factors and root causes. Patients should be more effectively involved in their discharge process, and the relevance of optimal communication between them should be emphasized to create a safe and efficient discharge process.

The association of clinical frailty with outcomes of patients reviewed by rapid response teams: an international prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a state of vulnerability to poor resolution of homeostasis after a stressor event and is strongly associated with adverse outcomes. Therefore, the assessment of frailty may be an essential part of evaluation in any healthcare encounter that might result in an escalation of care. The purpose of the study was to assess the frequency and association of frailty with clinical outcomes in patients subject to rapid response team (RRT) review. METHODS: In this multi-national prospective observational cohort study, centres with existing RRTs collected data over a 7-day period, with follow up of all patients at 24 h following their RRT call and at hospital discharge or 30 days following the event trigger (whichever came sooner). Investigators also collected data on the triggers and interventions provided and a bedside assessment on the level of patients' frailty using a clinical frailty scale. RESULTS: Amongst 1133 patients, 40% were screened as frail, which was associated with older age (p < 0.001), admission under a medical speciality (p < 0.001), increased severity of illness at the time of the RRT review (p = 0.0047), and substantially higher frequency of limitations of care (p < 0.001). Importantly, 72% of patients screened as frail were either dead or dependent on hospital care by 30 days (p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, the significant risk factors for the composite endpoint "poor recovery" (died or were hospital-dependent by 30 days) were age (odds ratio (OR), 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-1.05; p < 0.001), frailty level (p < 0.001), existing limitation of care (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0; p < 0.001), and the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher frailty scores were associated with increased mortality and dependence on health care at 30 days. Our results indicate that frailty has an influence on the clinical trajectory of deteriorating patients and that such assessment should be included in discussion of goals and expectations of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR5535 . Registered on 23 December 2015.

Patients' and providers' perceptions of the preventability of hospital readmission: a prospective, observational study in four European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Because of fundamental differences in healthcare systems, US readmission data cannot be extrapolated to the European setting: To investigate the opinions of readmitted patients, their carers, nurses and physicians on predictability and preventability of readmissions and using majority consensus to determine contributing factors that could potentially foresee (preventable) readmissions. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. Readmitted patients, their carers, and treating professionals were surveyed during readmission to assess the discharge process and the predictability and preventability of the readmission. Cohen's Kappa measured pairwise agreement of considering readmission as predictable/preventable by patients, carers and professionals. Subsequently, multivariable logistic regressionidentified factors associated with predictability/preventability. SETTING: 15 hospitals in four European countries PARTICIPANTS: 1398 medical patients readmitted unscheduled within 30 days MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: (1) Agreement between the interviewed groups on considering readmissions likely predictable or preventable;(2) Factors distinguishing predictable from non-predictable and preventable from non-preventable readmissions. RESULTS: The majority deemed 27.8% readmissions potentially predictable and 14.4% potentially preventable. The consensus on predictability and preventability was poor, especially between patients and professionals (kappas ranged from 0.105 to 0.173). The interviewed selected different factors as potentially associated with predictability and preventability. When a patient reported that he was ready for discharge during index admission, the readmission was deemed less likely by the majority (predictability: OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.75; preventability: OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: There is no consensus between readmitted patients, their carers and treating professionals about predictability and preventability of readmissions, nor associated risk factors. A readmitted patient reporting not feeling ready for discharge at index admission was strongly associated with preventability/predictability. Therefore, healthcare workers should question patients' readiness to go home timely before discharge.

Crew resource management training in the intensive care unit. A multisite controlled before-after study.

INTRODUCTION: There is a growing awareness today that adverse events in the intensive care unit (ICU) are more often caused by problems related to non-technical skills than by a lack of technical, or clinical, expertise. Team training, such as crew resource management (CRM), aims to improve these non-technical skills. The present study evaluated the effectiveness of CRM in the ICU. METHODS: Six ICUs participated in a paired controlled trial, with one pretest and two post-test measurements (after 3 and 12 months). Three ICUs received CRM training and were compared with a matched control unit. The 2-day classroom-based training was delivered to multidisciplinary groups (ie, ICU physicians, nurses, managers). All levels of Kirkpatrick's evaluation framework were assessed using a mixed method design, including questionnaires, observations and routinely administered patient outcome data. RESULTS: Level I-reaction: participants were very positive directly after the training. Level II-learning: attitudes towards behaviour aimed at optimising situational awareness were relatively high at baseline and remained stable. Level III-behaviour: self-reported behaviour aimed at optimising situational awareness improved in the intervention group. No changes were found in observed explicit professional oral communication. Level IV-organisation: patient outcomes were unaffected. Error management culture and job satisfaction improved in the intervention group. Patient safety culture improved in both control and intervention units. CONCLUSIONS: We can conclude that CRM, as delivered in the present study, does not change behaviour or patient outcomes by itself, yet changes how participants think about errors and risks. This indicates that CRM requires a combination with other initiatives in order to improve clinical outcomes.