Search

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of time of day, day of week and level of patient monitoring on medical emergency team (MET) activation. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study of all MET and cardiac arrest events between October 2001 and March 2005. SETTING: University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Presbyterian Hospital, a tertiary care teaching facility in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cardiac arrest and MET event rate during the day (7 am to 6:59 pm) and night (7 pm to 6:59 am) overall; for weekdays and weekends; and from unmonitored, monitored, and intensive care units (ICUs). There were 605 cardiac arrest and 4,072 MET events. MET event rate was higher during the day than at night in unmonitored units (62% day vs. 38% night; p < .001) and monitored units (59% day vs. 41% night; p < .001) but not in ICUs (47% day vs. 53% night; p = .20). Unmonitored units had a greater daytime increase in MET event rate than monitored units (63% vs. 46%), whereas ICUs showed an 11% decline compared with night. The MET day vs. night difference was greater on weekdays (65% day vs. 35% night; p < .001) than on weekends (56% day vs. 44% night; p < .001). Cardiac arrest event rate showed no diurnal pattern in any unit setting but had a higher daytime event rate during weekdays (57% day vs. 43% night; p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: More MET events take place during the day. MET events in unmonitored units have a greater diurnal variability than those from monitored units. ICUs show no diurnal variation in MET event rate. Our results suggest a significant variability in the hospital ability to consistently detect patients who meet MET activation criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies have established that physiologic instability and services mismatching precede adverse events in hospitalized patients. In response to these considerations, the concept of a Rapid Response System (RRS) has emerged. The responding team is commonly known as a medical emergency team (MET), rapid response team (RRT), or critical care outreach (CCO). Studies show that an RRS may improve outcome, but questions remain regarding the benefit, design elements, and advisability of implementing a MET system., Methods: In June 2005 an International Conference on Medical Emergency Teams (ICMET) included experts in patient safety, hospital medicine, critical care medicine, and METs. Seven of 25 had no experience with an RRS, and the remainder had experience with one of the three major forms of RRS. After preconference telephone and e-mail conversations by the panelists in which questions to be discussed were characterized, literature reviewed, and preliminary answers created, the panelists convened for 2 days to create a consensus document. Four major content areas were addressed: What is a MET response? Is there a MET syndrome? What are barriers to METS? How should outcome be measured? Panelists considered whether all hospitals should implement an RRS., Results: Patients needing an RRS intervention are suddenly critically ill and have a mismatch of resources to needs. Hospitals should implement an RRS, which consists of four elements: an afferent, "crisis detection" and "response triggering" mechanism; an efferent, predetermined rapid response team; a governance/administrative structure to supply and organize resources; and a mechanism to evaluate crisis antecedents and promote hospital process improvement to prevent future events.