实践中的分层升级响应系统:检查工作量影响的事后分析

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Alice O'Connell MBBS , Arthas Flabouris MBBS MD , Suzanne Edwards BN , Campbell H. Thompson DPhil
{"title":"实践中的分层升级响应系统:检查工作量影响的事后分析","authors":"Alice O'Connell MBBS ,&nbsp;Arthas Flabouris MBBS MD ,&nbsp;Suzanne Edwards BN ,&nbsp;Campbell H. Thompson DPhil","doi":"10.1016/j.ccrj.2023.04.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Many rapid response systems now have multiple tiers of escalation in addition to the traditional single tier of a medical emergency team. Given that the benefit to patient outcomes of this change is unclear, we sought to investigate the workload implications of a multitiered system, including the impact of trigger modification.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>The study design incorporated a post hoc analysis using a matched case–control dataset.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>The study setting was an acute, adult tertiary referral hospital.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>Cases that had an adverse event (cardiac arrest or unanticipated intensive care unit admission) or a rapid response team (RRT) call participated in the study. Controls were matched by age, gender, ward and time of year, and no adverse event or RRT call. Participants were admitted between May 2014 and April 2015.</p></div><div><h3>Main outcome measures</h3><p>The main outcome measure were the number of reviews, triggers, and modifications across three tiers of escalation; a nurse review, a multidisciplinary review (MDT—admitting medical team review), and an RRT call.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 321 cases and 321 controls. Overall, there were 1948 nurse triggers, of which 1431 (73.5%) were in cases and 517 (26.5%) in controls, 798 MDT triggers (660 [82.7%] in cases and 138 [17.3%] in controls), and 379 RRT triggers (351 [92.6%] in cases and 28 [7.4%] in controls). Per patient per 24 h, there were 3.03 nurse, 1.24 MDT, and 0.59 RRT triggers. Accounting for modifications, this reduced to 2.17, 0.88, and 0.42, respectively. The proportion of triggers that were modified, so as not to trigger a review, was similar across all the tiers, being 28.6% of nurse, 29.6% of MDT, and 28.2% of RRT triggers. Per patient per 24 h, there were 0.61 nurse reviews, 0.52 MDT reviews, and 0.08 RRT reviews.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Lower-tier triggers were more prevalent, and modifications were common. Modifications significantly mitigated the escalation workload across all tiers of a multitiered system.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49215,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tiered escalation response systems in practice: A post hoc analysis examining the workload implications\",\"authors\":\"Alice O'Connell MBBS ,&nbsp;Arthas Flabouris MBBS MD ,&nbsp;Suzanne Edwards BN ,&nbsp;Campbell H. Thompson DPhil\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ccrj.2023.04.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Many rapid response systems now have multiple tiers of escalation in addition to the traditional single tier of a medical emergency team. Given that the benefit to patient outcomes of this change is unclear, we sought to investigate the workload implications of a multitiered system, including the impact of trigger modification.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>The study design incorporated a post hoc analysis using a matched case–control dataset.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>The study setting was an acute, adult tertiary referral hospital.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>Cases that had an adverse event (cardiac arrest or unanticipated intensive care unit admission) or a rapid response team (RRT) call participated in the study. Controls were matched by age, gender, ward and time of year, and no adverse event or RRT call. Participants were admitted between May 2014 and April 2015.</p></div><div><h3>Main outcome measures</h3><p>The main outcome measure were the number of reviews, triggers, and modifications across three tiers of escalation; a nurse review, a multidisciplinary review (MDT—admitting medical team review), and an RRT call.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 321 cases and 321 controls. Overall, there were 1948 nurse triggers, of which 1431 (73.5%) were in cases and 517 (26.5%) in controls, 798 MDT triggers (660 [82.7%] in cases and 138 [17.3%] in controls), and 379 RRT triggers (351 [92.6%] in cases and 28 [7.4%] in controls). Per patient per 24 h, there were 3.03 nurse, 1.24 MDT, and 0.59 RRT triggers. Accounting for modifications, this reduced to 2.17, 0.88, and 0.42, respectively. The proportion of triggers that were modified, so as not to trigger a review, was similar across all the tiers, being 28.6% of nurse, 29.6% of MDT, and 28.2% of RRT triggers. Per patient per 24 h, there were 0.61 nurse reviews, 0.52 MDT reviews, and 0.08 RRT reviews.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Lower-tier triggers were more prevalent, and modifications were common. Modifications significantly mitigated the escalation workload across all tiers of a multitiered system.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49215,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care and Resuscitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care and Resuscitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277223000121\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277223000121","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的除了传统的单层医疗急救队伍外,许多快速反应系统现在还有多层升级。鉴于这种改变对患者预后的益处尚不清楚,我们试图调查多层系统的工作量影响,包括触发修改的影响。设计:研究设计采用匹配病例对照数据集进行事后分析。研究背景是一家急性成人三级转诊医院。有不良事件(心脏骤停或意外入住重症监护病房)或快速反应小组(RRT)呼叫的病例参与了研究。对照组按年龄、性别、病房和时间进行匹配,没有不良事件或RRT呼叫。参与者在2014年5月至2015年4月期间被录取。主要结果测量指标主要结果测量指标是三个升级阶段的回顾、触发和修改次数;护士审查、多学科审查(mdt入院医疗小组审查)和RRT电话。结果病例321例,对照组321例。共有1948例护士触发因素,其中病例1431例(73.5%),对照组517例(26.5%);MDT触发因素798例(病例660例(82.7%),对照组138例(17.3%));RRT触发因素379例(病例351例(92.6%),对照组28例(7.4%))。每名患者每24 h有3.03名护士,1.24名MDT和0.59名RRT触发。考虑到修改,这分别减少到2.17、0.88和0.42。修改触发因素以不触发回顾的比例在所有层级中相似,分别为28.6%的护士、29.6%的MDT和28.2%的RRT触发因素。每名患者每24小时有0.61次护士评价,0.52次MDT评价和0.08次RRT评价。结论慢级触发更为普遍,且修改较为常见。修改显著减轻了多层系统中所有层的升级工作负载。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tiered escalation response systems in practice: A post hoc analysis examining the workload implications

Objective

Many rapid response systems now have multiple tiers of escalation in addition to the traditional single tier of a medical emergency team. Given that the benefit to patient outcomes of this change is unclear, we sought to investigate the workload implications of a multitiered system, including the impact of trigger modification.

Design

The study design incorporated a post hoc analysis using a matched case–control dataset.

Setting

The study setting was an acute, adult tertiary referral hospital.

Participants

Cases that had an adverse event (cardiac arrest or unanticipated intensive care unit admission) or a rapid response team (RRT) call participated in the study. Controls were matched by age, gender, ward and time of year, and no adverse event or RRT call. Participants were admitted between May 2014 and April 2015.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measure were the number of reviews, triggers, and modifications across three tiers of escalation; a nurse review, a multidisciplinary review (MDT—admitting medical team review), and an RRT call.

Results

There were 321 cases and 321 controls. Overall, there were 1948 nurse triggers, of which 1431 (73.5%) were in cases and 517 (26.5%) in controls, 798 MDT triggers (660 [82.7%] in cases and 138 [17.3%] in controls), and 379 RRT triggers (351 [92.6%] in cases and 28 [7.4%] in controls). Per patient per 24 h, there were 3.03 nurse, 1.24 MDT, and 0.59 RRT triggers. Accounting for modifications, this reduced to 2.17, 0.88, and 0.42, respectively. The proportion of triggers that were modified, so as not to trigger a review, was similar across all the tiers, being 28.6% of nurse, 29.6% of MDT, and 28.2% of RRT triggers. Per patient per 24 h, there were 0.61 nurse reviews, 0.52 MDT reviews, and 0.08 RRT reviews.

Conclusions

Lower-tier triggers were more prevalent, and modifications were common. Modifications significantly mitigated the escalation workload across all tiers of a multitiered system.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care and Resuscitation
Critical Care and Resuscitation CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
3.40%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ritical Care and Resuscitation (CC&R) is the official scientific journal of the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM). The Journal is a quarterly publication (ISSN 1441-2772) with original articles of scientific and clinical interest in the specialities of Critical Care, Intensive Care, Anaesthesia, Emergency Medicine and related disciplines. The Journal is received by all Fellows and trainees, along with an increasing number of subscribers from around the world. The CC&R Journal currently has an impact factor of 3.3, placing it in 8th position in world critical care journals and in first position in the world outside the USA and Europe.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信