Patient outcomes following medical emergency team review on general wards: Development of predictive models.

AIM: To develop and internally validate risk prediction models for subsequent clinical deterioration, unplanned ICU admission and death among ward patients following medical emergency team (MET) review. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of 1500 patients who remained on a general ward following MET review at an Australian quaternary hospital. METHOD: Logistic regression was used to model (1) subsequent MET review within 48 h, (2) unplanned ICU admission within 48 h and (3) hospital mortality. Models included demographic, clinical and illness severity variables. Model performance was evaluated using discrimination and calibration with optimism-corrected bootstrapped estimates. Findings are reported using the TRIPOD guideline for multivariable prediction models for prognosis or diagnosis. There was no patient or public involvement in the development and conduct of this study. RESULTS: Within 48 h of index MET review, 8.3% (n = 125) of patients had a subsequent MET review, 7.2% (n = 108) had an unplanned ICU admission and in-hospital mortality was 16% (n = 240). From clinically preselected predictors, models retained age, sex, comorbidity, resuscitation limitation, acuity-dependency profile, MET activation triggers and whether the patient was within 24 h of hospital admission, ICU discharge or surgery. Models for subsequent MET review, unplanned ICU admission, and death had adequate accuracy in development and bootstrapped validation samples. CONCLUSION: Patients requiring MET review demonstrate complex clinical characteristics and the majority remain on the ward after review for deterioration. A risk score could be used to identify patients at risk of poor outcomes after MET review and support general ward clinical decision-making. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Our risk calculator estimates risk for patient outcomes following MET review using clinical data available at the bedside. Future validation and implementation could support evidence-informed team communication and patient placement decisions.

The illness severity of ward remaining patients reviewed by the medical emergency team: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although progress has been made in identifying and responding to acutely deteriorating ward patients, judgements about the level of care required for patients after medical emergency team review are complex, rarely including a formal assessment of illness severity. This challenges staff and resource management practices and patient safety. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to quantify the illness severity of ward patients after medical emergency team review. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SETTING: This retrospective cohort study examined the clinical records of 1500 randomly sampled adult ward patients following medical emergency team review at a metropolitan tertiary hospital. Outcome measures were the derivation of patient acuity and dependency scores using sequential organ failure assessment and nursing activities score instruments. Findings are reported using the STROBE guideline for cohort studies. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No direct patient contact was made during the data collection and analysis phases of the study. RESULTS: Patients were male (52.6%), unplanned (73.9%) medical admissions (57.5%), median age of 67 years. The median sequential organ failure assessment score was 4% and 20% of patients demonstrated multiple organ system failure requiring non typical monitoring and coordination arrangements for at least 24 h. The median nursing activities score was 86% suggestive of a near 1:1 nurse-to-patient ratio. More than half of all patients required enhanced levels of assistance with mobilization (58.8%) and hygiene (53.9%) activities. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who remain on the ward following medical emergency team review had complex combinations of organ dysfunction, with levels of dependency similar to those found in intensive care units. This has implications for ward and patient safety and continuity of care arrangements. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Profiling illness severity at the conclusion of the medical emergency team review may help determine the need for special resource and staffing arrangements or placement within the ward environment.

Illness severity characteristics and outcomes of patients remaining on an acute ward following medical emergency team review: a latent profile analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring medical emergency team (MET) review have complex clinical needs, and most remain on the ward after review. Current detection instruments cannot identify post-MET patient requirements, meaning patients remain undistinguished, potentially resulting in missed management opportunities. We propose that deteriorating patients will cluster along dimensions of illness severity and that these clusters may be used to strengthen patient risk management practices. OBJECTIVE: To identify and define the number of illness severity clusters and report outcomes among ward patients following MET review. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This retrospective cohort study examined the clinical records of 1500 adult ward patients following MET review at an Australian quaternary hospital. Three-step latent profile analysis methods were used to determine clusters using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Nursing Activities Score (NAS) as illness severity indicators. Study outcomes were (1) hospital mortality, (2) unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission and (3) subsequent MET review. RESULTS: Patients were unplanned (73.9%) and medical (57.5%) admissions with at least one comorbidity (51.4%), and complex combinations of acuity (SOFA range 1-17) and dependency (NAS range 22.4%-148.5%). Five clusters are reported. Patients in cluster 1 were equivalent to clinically stable general ward patients. Organ failure and complexity increased with cluster progression-clusters 2 and 3 were equivalent to subspecialty/higher-dependency wards, and clusters 4 and 5 were equivalent to ICUs. Patients in cluster 5 had the greatest odds for death (OR 26.2, 95% CI 23.3 to 31.3), unplanned ICU admission (OR 3.1, 95% CI 3.0 to 3.1) and subsequent MET review (OR 2.4, 95% CI 2.4 to 2.6). CONCLUSION: The five illness severity clusters may be used to define patients at risk of poorer outcomes who may benefit from enhanced levels of monitoring and targeted care.

The illness severity of patients reviewed by the medical emergency team: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Medical emergency teams (METs) are internationally used to manage hospitalised deteriorating patients. Although triggers for MET review and hospital outcomes have previously been widely reported, the illness severity at the point of MET review has not been reported. As such, levels of clinical acuity and patient dependency representing the risk of exposure to short-term adverse clinical outcomes remain largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review sought to understand the illness severity of MET review recipients in terms of acuity and dependency. METHODS: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. The published and grey literature since 2009 was searched to identify relevant articles reporting illness severity scores associated with hospitalised adult inpatients reviewed by a MET. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 17 articles (16 quantitative studies, one mixed-methods study) were reviewed, summarised, collated, and reported. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies reported clinical acuity metrics for patients reviewed by a MET. No studies described an integrated risk score encompassing acuity, patient dependency, or wider parameters that might be associated with increased patient risk or the need for intervention. Multi-MET review, the use of specialist interventions, and delayed/transfer to the intensive care unit were associated with a greater risk of clinical deterioration, higher clinical acuity score, and predicted mortality risk. A single dependency metric was not reported although organisational levels of care, the duration of MET review, MET interventions, chronic illness, and frailty were inferred proxy measures. CONCLUSION: Of the 17 studies reviewed, no single study provided an integrated assessment of illness severity from which to stratify risk or support patient management processes. Patients reviewed by a MET have variable and rapidly changing health needs that make them particularly vulnerable. The lack of high-quality data reporting acuity and dependency limits our understanding of true clinical risk and subsequent opportunities for pathway development.

Nurse-Led Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative Setting: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Nurses provide care at each phase of the complex, perioperative pathway and are well placed to identify areas of care requiring investigation in randomized controlled trials. Yet, currently, the scope of nurse-led randomized controlled trials conducted within the perioperative setting are unknown. This scoping review aims to identify areas of perioperative care in which nurse-led randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to identify issues impacting upon the quality of these trials and identify gaps for future investigation. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted in reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with a date range of 2014-19. Sources of unpublished literature included Open Grey, and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, Clinical Trials.gov and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. After title and abstract checking, full-text retrieval and data extraction, studies were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists for randomized controlled trials. Data were synthesized according to the main objectives. Key information was tabulated. RESULTS: From the 86 included studies, key areas where nurses have led randomized controlled trials include patient or caregiver anxiety; postoperative pain relief; surgical site infection prevention: patient and caregiver knowledge; perioperative hypothermia prevention; postoperative nausea and vomiting; in addition to other diverse outcomes. Issues impacting upon quality (including poorly reported randomization), and gaps for future investigation (including a focus on vulnerable populations), are evident. CONCLUSION: Nurse-led randomized controlled trials in the perioperative setting have focused on key areas of perioperative care. Yet, opportunities exist for nurses to lead experimental research in other perioperative priority areas and within different populations that have been neglected, such as in the population of older adults undergoing surgery.