0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Impact of Rapid Response System Implementation on Critical Deterioration Events in Children FREE

Christopher P. Bonafide, MD, MSCE1,2,3; A. Russell Localio, PhD, MPH4; Kathryn E. Roberts, RN, MSN5; Vinay M. Nadkarni, MD, MS6,7; Christine M. Weirich, MPH1; Ron Keren, MD, MPH1,2,3
[+] Author Affiliations
1Division of General Pediatrics, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
2Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
3Center for Pediatric Clinical Effectiveness, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
4Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
5Department of Nursing, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
6Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(1):25-33. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3266.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  Rapid response systems aim to identify and rescue deteriorating hospitalized patients. Previous pediatric rapid response system implementation studies have shown variable effectiveness in preventing rare, catastrophic outcomes such as cardiac arrest and death.

Objective  To evaluate the impact of pediatric rapid response system implementation inclusive of a medical emergency team and an early warning score on critical deterioration, a proximate outcome defined as unplanned transfer to the intensive care unit with noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or vasopressor infusion in the 12 hours after transfer.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Quasi-experimental study with interrupted time series analysis using piecewise regression. At an urban, tertiary care children’s hospital in the United States, we evaluated 1810 unplanned transfers from the general medical and surgical wards to the pediatric and neonatal intensive care units that occurred during 370 504 non–intensive care patient-days between July 1, 2007, and May 31, 2012.

Interventions  Implementation of a hospital-wide rapid response system inclusive of a medical emergency team and an early warning score in February 2010.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Rate of critical deterioration events, adjusted for season, ward, and case mix.

Results  Rapid response system implementation was associated with a significant downward change in the preintervention trajectory of critical deterioration and a 62% net decrease relative to the preintervention trend (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20-0.75). We observed absolute reductions in ward cardiac arrests (from 0.03 to 0.01 per 1000 non–intensive care patient-days) and deaths during ward emergencies (from 0.01 to 0.00 per 1000 non–intensive care patient-days), but these were not statistically significant (P = .21 and P = .99, respectively). Among all unplanned transfers, critical deterioration was associated with a 4.97-fold increased risk of death (95% CI, 3.33-7.40; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance  Rapid response system implementation reversed an increasing trend of critical deterioration. Cardiac arrest and death were extremely rare at baseline, and their reductions were not statistically significant despite using nearly 5 years of data. Hospitals seeking to measure rapid response system performance may consider using valid proximate outcomes like critical deterioration in addition to rare, catastrophic outcomes.

Figures in this Article

Rapid response systems (RRSs) aim to identify hospitalized patients exhibiting signs of deterioration and intervene before respiratory or cardiac arrest occurs. These include afferent and efferent limbs. The role of the afferent limb is to identify deteriorating patients using tools such as early warning scores (EWSs).1 The role of the efferent limb is to deploy medical emergency teams (METs) to hospital wards to rescue deteriorating patients.1

The effectiveness of RRSs in improving patient safety is controversial.2 A key limitation of prior pediatric RRS research is that the outcome measures traditionally evaluated—respiratory arrests, cardiac arrests, and deaths—are exceedingly rare.

The critical deterioration (CD) metric, defined as transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) followed by noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or vasopressor infusion within 12 hours, has been shown to be a valid proximate outcome for evaluating RRS performance.3 We previously demonstrated that CD was more than 8 times more common than respiratory and cardiac arrests and was associated with a more than 13-fold increased risk of in-hospital death.3

In this study, we aim to evaluate the impact of RRS implementation inclusive of an EWS and an MET on CD as well as rare, catastrophic outcomes used more commonly in RRS studies.

Setting

We performed this quasi-experimental study at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia between July 1, 2007, and May 31, 2012. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is an urban, tertiary care children’s hospital with 516 beds, including a 55-bed pediatric ICU, an 83-bed neonatal ICU, and a 24-bed cardiac ICU. On February 8, 2010, the hospital implemented an RRS that served all acute care wards except the cardiology, tracheostomy-ventilator, and obstetric units and the ICUs. The RRS consisted of (1) an EWS based on Parshuram and colleagues’ Bedside Pediatric Early Warning System46 with corresponding escalation guidelines, and (2) a 30-minute response MET available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The MET could be activated by any clinician for any clinical concern, regardless of the EWS.

The MET was composed of 3 responding pediatric ICU clinicians: (1) a fellow, attending, or nurse practitioner, (2) a nurse, and (3) a respiratory therapist. Following an MET activation, the patient could be transferred to the pediatric or neonatal ICU or remain on the ward. For urgent concerns that could not wait 30 minutes, the immediate-response code blue team remained available. Prior to RRS implementation, physicians could page the pediatric ICU fellow to discuss patients who did not require the code blue team but were clinically deteriorating.

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Institutional Review Board approved the study. A waiver of consent, assent, and parental permission was approved per 45 CFR §46.116(d) and a waiver of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorization was approved per 45 CFR §164.512(i)(2)(ii) by The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Institutional Review Board.

Data Collection

We identified transfers from acute care wards to the pediatric or neonatal ICU using the electronic health record (Epic Systems). We did not include transfers from areas not served by the RRS. We reviewed each medical record and excluded transfers that did not meet unplanned criteria: those that were elective or planned in advance, those coming directly from the operating room or sleep laboratory, and those in which the need for ICU care was attributed to the need to recover from sedation. Determination of unplanned transfers was performed by 2 research assistants with experience in the nursing field. Before collecting data, both research assistants reviewed the same 50 medical records independently and achieved 94% agreement (κ = 0.88).

For the transfers categorized as unplanned, we reviewed ICU flow sheets for the 12 hours after transfer and recorded the time from ICU arrival to life-sustaining interventions, including initiation of noninvasive ventilation (continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure), invasive mechanical ventilation via endotracheal tube or tracheostomy, and vasopressor infusion (ie, dopamine, dobutamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, phenylephrine, isoproterenol, or milrinone). We classified events requiring any of these interventions in the first 12 hours after ICU transfer as CD.3 In addition, any patients who died during an emergency response on the ward before they could be transferred to the ICU experienced CD. We calculated interrater reliability for CD with 50 medical records using the methods described earlier and achieved 100% agreement (κ = 1.00).

We obtained frequencies of code blue calls, MET calls, respiratory arrests, cardiac arrests, and deaths occurring on general medical and surgical wards from the hospital’s Resuscitation Committee database. We defined respiratory arrests as emergent intubations with subsequent transfer to ICU or death on the ward, and we defined cardiac arrests as events with documented pulselessness or a pulse with inadequate perfusion receiving chest compressions and/or defibrillation, with subsequent transfer to ICU or death on the ward. We obtained the Pediatric Risk of Mortality III score at 12 hours (PRISM III-12)7 from the hospital’s Critical Care Center for Evidence and Outcomes database.

Data Analysis

We considered July 1, 2007, through February 28, 2010, to be the preimplementation period (numbered as months −31 through 0) and March 1, 2010, through May 31, 2012, to be the postimplementation period (numbered as months +1 through +27). For unadjusted rates, we calculated Poisson confidence intervals and compared preimplementation and postimplementation using Poisson regression.

We then performed an interrupted time series analysis using segmented (piecewise) regression to evaluate dynamic changes in outcomes following the RRS implementation while controlling for secular trends.8,9 We used multivariable generalized estimating equations models with the negative binomial distribution10,11 to evaluate the effect of RRS implementation. We evaluated additional models with quadratic terms and found that these terms did not approach statistical significance; therefore, we did not include them in our final model. We adjusted for season, ward, and case-mix index. As in similar studies,12 case mix was based on the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cost weights and assessed monthly for the hospital.

We used the regression model to ask the following questions: (1) What was the preimplementation rate trajectory? (2) Was there an immediate change in the rate immediately following implementation? (3) What was the postimplementation rate trajectory? (4) Were the preimplementation and postimplementation rate trajectories significantly different? and (5) What was the net effect of the intervention, estimated as the adjusted difference between the fitted rate at the end of the postintervention period and the expected rate if the preintervention trajectory had continued, uninterrupted by the intervention (expressed as an adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR])?13

To evaluate the stability of our results, we performed a sensitivity analysis evaluating the impact of censoring 3 months (months +1 through +3) and 6 months (months +1 through +6) immediately following implementation on the net effect for the primary outcome, CD.

As a secondary analysis, we also evaluated the time to life-sustaining interventions in the ICU among unplanned transfers using a Kaplan-Meier failure plot and calculated the hazard ratio between groups. We tested the equality of the time to vasopressors or mechanical ventilation between the preimplementation and postimplementation periods using Cox regression.14

To revalidate the CD metric using a different comparison group than in the original study,3 among unplanned transfers to the ICU we calculated the relative risk of death prior to hospital discharge comparing admissions with CD with those without CD.

We managed the data using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap).15 We analyzed the data using Stata version 12.1 statistical software (StataCorp LP).

Patient Characteristics

During the 59-month study period, there were 1810 unplanned transfers from the wards to the pediatric and neonatal ICUs and 370 504 non-ICU patient-days. The patients were similar in age, sex, transferring ward, and destination ICU between the preimplementation and postimplementation periods (Table 1). The PRISM III-12 scores were available in 1558 (86%) of the transfers; the median preimplementation score was 2, and the median postimplementation score was 0 (Table 1).

MET Utilization

In the preimplementation period, there were 102 code blue team activations (0.53 per 1000 non-ICU patient-days). In the postimplementation period, there were 115 code blue team activations (0.65 per 1000 non-ICU patient-days) (P = .15 for the preimplementation vs postimplementation difference) and 1534 MET activations (8.61 per 1000 non-ICU patient-days), for a combined utilization rate of 9.26 per 1000 non-ICU patient-days or 24.41 per 1000 all-hospital admissions.

Traditional Clinical Outcomes

We observed reductions in unadjusted rates of ward cardiac arrests and deaths during ward emergencies after RRS implementation, but these reductions did not reach statistical significance (Table 2). There were no significant differences in the rates of respiratory arrests on the wards or mortality prior to discharge among those patients transferred to the ICU between the preimplementation and postimplementation periods (Table 2). Owing to their low rates of occurrence, performing an adjusted analysis of traditional clinical outcomes was not feasible without risk of overfitting.16

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Unadjusted Impact of Rapid Response System Implementation on Clinical Outcomes
ICU Transfers

In unadjusted analysis, the rate of unplanned transfers to the ICU was significantly higher in the postimplementation period than in the preimplementation period (Table 2). In the adjusted interrupted time series model, RRS implementation was not associated with a change in the transfer rate trajectory and had no net difference in the transfer rate relative to the preintervention trend (Figure 1 and Table 3).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Outcome Rates and Trajectories

A, Unplanned transfers to the intensive care unit (ICU). B, Critical deterioration. C, Mechanical ventilation within 12 hours after transfer to the ICU. D, Vasopressor infusion within 12 hours after transfer to the ICU. The vertical lines at month 0 (February 2010) indicate the month of rapid response system (RRS) implementation.

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Adjusted Impact of Rapid Response System Implementation on Clinical Outcomes
CD Events

In unadjusted analysis, RRS implementation was not associated with a significant difference in the rate of CD (Table 2). In the adjusted interrupted time series model, RRS implementation was associated with a significant downward change in the CD rate trajectory and a net reduction in events by 62% relative to the preintervention trend (IRR = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20-0.75) (Figure 1 and Table 3).

Mechanical Ventilation

In unadjusted analysis, RRS implementation was not associated with significant differences in mechanical ventilation use following transfer to the ICU (Table 2). In the adjusted interrupted time series model, RRS implementation was associated with a significant downward change in the trajectory of mechanical ventilation use in the 12 hours following transfer to the ICU and a net reduction in events by 83% relative to the preintervention trend (IRR = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.07-0.44) (Figure 1 and Table 3).

Vasopressors

In unadjusted analysis, RRS implementation was associated with a reduction in the proportion of unplanned transfers requiring vasopressors in the first 1 hour following transfer but not in the first 12 hours (Table 2). In addition, of the patients with unplanned transfers who required vasopressors in the first 12 hours following ICU transfer, significantly fewer required them in the first 1 hour after transfer (Table 2). In the adjusted interrupted time series model, RRS implementation was associated with a significant downward change in the trajectory of vasopressor use in the 12 hours following transfer to the ICU and a net reduction in events by 80% relative to the preintervention trend (IRR = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.62) (Figure 1 and Table 3).

Sensitivity Analysis

Censoring 3 or 6 months following implementation had minimal impact on the results. A 3-month censored period changed the IRR for the net intervention effect on CD from 0.38 to 0.41 (95% CI, 0.22-0.76; P = .005). A 6-month censored period changed the IRR to 0.40 (95% CI, 0.20-0.79; P = .008).

Time to Life-Sustaining Interventions

Implementation of the RRS was associated with a longer interval from ICU arrival to vasopressor administration or mechanical ventilation. Figure 2A illustrates that this finding existed among all patients transferred to the ICU (hazard ratio = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.995; P = .046), primarily because fewer transferred patients required these life-sustaining interventions in the first 12 ICU hours. This finding persisted when the sample was restricted to patients who did require vasopressor administration or mechanical ventilation in the first 12 ICU hours. In this case, after RRS implementation, we found that fewer patients required these interventions emergently as evidenced by the more gradual initial slope of the postimplementation Kaplan-Meier failure plot over the first 4 ICU hours (hazard ratio = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93; P = .01) (Figure 2B).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Kaplan-Meier Failure Plots of Time to Mechanical Ventilation

Kaplan-Meier failure plots of time to mechanical ventilation or vasopressor infusion among all unplanned transfers to the intensive care unit (ICU) (hazard ratio = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.995; P = .046) (A) and restricted to transfers with mechanical ventilation or vasopressors (hazard ratio [over first 4 ICU hours] = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93; P = .01) (B).

Graphic Jump Location
Additional Validation of CD Metric

Among all 1681 admissions during the preimplementation and postimplementation periods with unplanned transfer to the ICU, we found that CD during the admission was associated with a 4.97-fold increased risk of death (95% CI, 3.33-7.40; P < .001).

This study found that implementation of an RRS inclusive of an EWS and an MET was associated with a significant downward change in the CD rate trajectory as well as a reduction in its rate relative to its preintervention trend. We did not see significant reductions in traditional metrics used to evaluate RRSs—respiratory arrests, cardiac arrests, and deaths—probably because these outcomes were already rare prior to RRS implementation. While the change in the trajectory of CD was apparent graphically (Figure 1), detecting this improvement mathematically required modeling the trajectory over time and adjusting for covariates. If we had simply compared the unadjusted preintervention and postintervention rates shown in Table 2, we might have erroneously concluded that there was no significant impact or that CD rates might have worsened as a result of implementation. Given the significant change in trajectory, we suspect that unadjusted postimplementation CD and traditional metric rates will become significantly lower over time.

When we evaluated the time to life-sustaining interventions, we found that after RRS implementation, fewer patients needed emergent vasopressors and mechanical ventilation in the first 4 hours in the ICU, even among those who eventually needed them by ICU hour 12. Similarly, we found that the postimplementation transfers may have been at a lower mortality risk than preimplementation transfers as measured by the median PRISM III-12 score, although this difference was not statistically significant. These findings have face validity; it is likely that implementation of the EWS improved recognition of shock and respiratory insufficiency, appropriately triggering the MET to rescue these patients earlier and allowing for a smoother transition to the ICU.

We also revalidated the association between CD and death. As expected, the strength of this 5-fold association was smaller than the 13-fold association observed in our original study3 because in this study we compared admissions with CD vs admissions with unplanned ICU transfer that did not meet CD criteria, whereas in the previous study we compared admissions with CD vs other admissions with any MET event, including those that did not even result in ICU transfer. Therefore, one would expect the relative risk to be smaller in this study’s comparison.

We evaluated the impact of simultaneous EWS and MET implementation. Seven prior studies have evaluated the impact of MET implementation without EWSs in children’s hospitals.12,1722 The studies are all single center without adjustment for other key variables, with the exceptions of the study by Sharek et al12 that, like this study, used interrupted time series modeling and adjusted for season and case mix and the multicenter study by Kotsakis et al.22 Two of the 7 studies showed no impact on arrest or mortality rates.18,21 One showed an impact on mortality only in a group of patients readmitted to the pediatric ICU.22 Two demonstrated reductions in hospital-wide mortality,12,20 2 demonstrated reductions in combined respiratory and cardiac arrests outside the ICU,12,17 and 1 demonstrated only a reduction in respiratory arrests outside the ICU.19 In a recent meta-analysis, implementation of a pediatric MET was associated with a 38% reduction in cardiac arrests outside the ICU and a 21% reduction in hospital mortality. However, this finding was not robust to sensitivity analysis and was greatly influenced by studies in which mortality reduction could not be explained by MET interventions.23

We chose to report the mortality rate only among unplanned transfers to the ICU rather than hospital-wide mortality because the majority of in-hospital pediatric deaths are not plausibly preventable by RRSs.23,24 For example, RRSs cannot prevent deaths among patients who never receive care outside an ICU, such as 500-g infants, children immediately following cardiac surgery, or major trauma victims. They should be excluded from analyses of the impact of RRSs.

Addressing the challenges of demonstrating improvements in exceedingly rare events attributable to RRS implementation, 2 other proximate outcomes have been developed. Significant clinical deterioration events defined using the Children’s Resuscitation Intensity Scale25 are interhospital transfers to a pediatric ICU following any of these in the 12 hours prior to transfer: invasive ventilation, more than 60 mL/kg of intravenous fluid, vasopressors, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or death. In one study, the rate of significant clinical deterioration events decreased following implementation of an EWS, although this included only 2 events in the preintervention period and 1 event in the postintervention period.25 Unrecognized Situation Awareness Failure Events (UNSAFE transfers) are defined as intrahospital ward to ICU transfers resulting in intubation, vasopressors, or at least 3 fluid boluses in the first 1 hour after transfer.26 In one study, reductions in the UNSAFE transfer rate were observed following improvements to the RRS afferent arm.26 Head-to-head comparison of these 2 alternative metrics with CD and validation in a multicenter cohort are needed.

This study has several limitations. First, this is a single-center quasi-experimental study with historical controls. These results occurred in a unique milieu of concurrent hospital safety initiatives that cannot be fully adjusted for, including work to reduce central line infections and implementation of a new electronic health record. While a large multicenter cluster-randomized trial would be the ideal design to determine the effect of pediatric RRS implementation, given their nearly universal presence, identifying an adequate number of eligible sites is not likely.27 Therefore, we must perform studies using longitudinal observational designs28,29 to determine the relationship between RRSs and clinical outcomes. Second, our estimation of the net effect is based on the difference between the fitted rate at the end of the postintervention period and the expected rate if the preintervention trajectory had continued. It is possible that the statistical model might not have captured an attenuation or ceiling effect of the increasing preintervention trajectory; therefore, the modeled net effect might be higher than would be observed clinically. Third, our key finding was that there was a clear change in the rate trajectory following RRS implementation. We do not know why the trajectory of CD was trending upward during the preintervention period. Fourth, we did not include cardiac patients because ward-specific mechanisms that are separate from the RRS exist to recognize deterioration and rescue these children, most of whom are recovering from cardiac surgery. Future studies should evaluate this population.

Implementation of the RRS resulted in improved patient safety outcomes. Detecting this improvement required using interrupted time series methods to evaluate proximate outcome measures. This study adds to the evidence supporting RRS implementation in children’s hospitals. Further, our results suggest that longitudinal evaluation and optimization of RRS performance might focus on incrementally reducing more common proximate outcomes like CD while continuing to measure rare, catastrophic outcomes.

Corresponding Author: Christopher P. Bonafide, MD, MSCE, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 34th Street and Civic Center Boulevard, Ste 12NW80, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (bonafide@email.chop.edu).

Accepted for Publication: June 20, 2013.

Published Online: November 11, 2013. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3266.

Author Contributions: Dr Bonafide had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Bonafide, Localio, Roberts, Nadkarni, Keren.

Acquisition of data: Bonafide, Roberts, Weirich.

Analysis and interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Bonafide, Localio, Roberts, Nadkarni.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Bonafide, Localio, Roberts, Keren.

Obtained funding: Bonafide, Keren.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Nadkarni, Weirich, Keren.

Study supervision: Localio, Nadkarni, Keren.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by the Health Research Formula Fund Award from the Pennsylvania Department of Health (Dr Keren).

Role of the Sponsor: The funding organization had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Additional Contributions: Donna Czaplicki, RN, BSN, assisted with medical record review and Sherri Kubis, RN, Judy Verger, RN, PhD, Rich Lin, MD, Akira Nishisaki, MD, MSCE, and the staff of the Critical Care Center for Evidence and Outcomes, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia assisted with data queries.

Devita  MA, Bellomo  R, Hillman  K,  et al.  Findings of the first consensus conference on medical emergency teams. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(9):2463-2478.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Joffe  AR, Anton  NR, Burkholder  SC.  Reduction in hospital mortality over time in a hospital without a pediatric medical emergency team: limitations of before-and-after study designs. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(5):419-423.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bonafide  CP, Roberts  KE, Priestley  MA,  et al.  Development of a pragmatic measure for evaluating and optimizing rapid response systems. Pediatrics. 2012;129(4):e874-e881.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Duncan  H, Hutchison  J, Parshuram  CS.  The Pediatric Early Warning System score: a severity of illness score to predict urgent medical need in hospitalized children. J Crit Care. 2006;21(3):271-278.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Parshuram  CS, Hutchison  J, Middaugh  K.  Development and initial validation of the Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System score. Crit Care. 2009;13(4):R135.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Parshuram  CS, Duncan  HP, Joffe  AR,  et al.  Multicentre validation of the bedside paediatric early warning system score: a severity of illness score to detect evolving critical illness in hospitalised children. Crit Care. 2011;15(4):R184.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pollack  MM, Patel  KM, Ruttimann  UE.  PRISM III: an updated Pediatric Risk of Mortality score. Crit Care Med. 1996;24(5):743-752.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Singer  JD, Willett  JB. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003.
Wagner  AK, Soumerai  SB, Zhang  F, Ross-Degnan  D.  Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2002;27(4):299-309.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gardner  W, Mulvey  EP, Shaw  EC.  Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychol Bull. 1995;118(3):392-404.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lawless  JF.  Negative binomial and mixed Poisson regression. Can J Stat. 1987;15(3):209-225. doi:10.2307/3314912.
Link to Article
Sharek  PJ, Parast  LM, Leong  K,  et al.  Effect of a rapid response team on hospital-wide mortality and code rates outside the ICU in a children’s hospital. JAMA. 2007;298(19):2267-2274.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Butcher  BW, Vittinghoff  E, Maselli  J, Auerbach  AD.  Impact of proactive rounding by a rapid response team on patient outcomes at an academic medical center. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(1):7-12.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Collett  D. Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research.2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press; 2003.
Harris  PA, Taylor  R, Thielke  R, Payne  J, Gonzalez  N, Conde  JG.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap): a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Concato  J, Feinstein  AR, Holford  TR.  The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(3):201-210.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brilli  RJ, Gibson  R, Luria  JW,  et al.  Implementation of a medical emergency team in a large pediatric teaching hospital prevents respiratory and cardiopulmonary arrests outside the intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2007;8(3):236-247.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Zenker  P, Schlesinger  A, Hauck  M,  et al.  Implementation and impact of a rapid response team in a children’s hospital. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007;33(7):418-425.
PubMed
Hunt  EA, Zimmer  KP, Rinke  ML,  et al.  Transition from a traditional code team to a medical emergency team and categorization of cardiopulmonary arrests in a children’s center. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162(2):117-122.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tibballs  J, Kinney  S.  Reduction of hospital mortality and of preventable cardiac arrest and death on introduction of a pediatric medical emergency team. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2009;10(3):306-312.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hanson  CC, Randolph  GD, Erickson  JA,  et al.  A reduction in cardiac arrests and duration of clinical instability after implementation of a paediatric rapid response system. Postgrad Med J. 2010;86(1015):314-318.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kotsakis  A, Lobos  A-T, Parshuram  C,  et al; Ontario Pediatric Critical Care Response Team Collaborative.  Implementation of a multicenter rapid response system in pediatric academic hospitals is effective. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):72-78.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chan  PS, Jain  R, Nallmothu  BK, Berg  RA, Sasson  C.  Rapid response teams: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(1):18-26.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Slonim  AD, Khandelwal  S, He  J,  et al.  Characteristics associated with pediatric inpatient death. Pediatrics. 2010;125(6):1208-1216.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Parshuram  CS, Bayliss  A, Reimer  J, Middaugh  K, Blanchard  N.  Implementing the Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System in a community hospital: a prospective observational study. Paediatr Child Health. 2011;16(3):e18-e22.
PubMed
Brady  PW, Muething  S, Kotagal  U,  et al.  Improving situation awareness to reduce unrecognized clinical deterioration and serious safety events. Pediatrics. 2013;131(1):e298-e308.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Winters  BD, Pronovost  PJ.  Rapid response systems: should we still question their implementation? J Hosp Med. 2013;8(5):278-281.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Zeger  SL, Irizarry  R, Peng  RD.  On time series analysis of public health and biomedical data. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:57-79.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shadish  WR, Cook  TD, Campbell  DT. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference.2nd ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth; 2001.

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Outcome Rates and Trajectories

A, Unplanned transfers to the intensive care unit (ICU). B, Critical deterioration. C, Mechanical ventilation within 12 hours after transfer to the ICU. D, Vasopressor infusion within 12 hours after transfer to the ICU. The vertical lines at month 0 (February 2010) indicate the month of rapid response system (RRS) implementation.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Kaplan-Meier Failure Plots of Time to Mechanical Ventilation

Kaplan-Meier failure plots of time to mechanical ventilation or vasopressor infusion among all unplanned transfers to the intensive care unit (ICU) (hazard ratio = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.995; P = .046) (A) and restricted to transfers with mechanical ventilation or vasopressors (hazard ratio [over first 4 ICU hours] = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93; P = .01) (B).

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Unadjusted Impact of Rapid Response System Implementation on Clinical Outcomes
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Adjusted Impact of Rapid Response System Implementation on Clinical Outcomes

References

Devita  MA, Bellomo  R, Hillman  K,  et al.  Findings of the first consensus conference on medical emergency teams. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(9):2463-2478.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Joffe  AR, Anton  NR, Burkholder  SC.  Reduction in hospital mortality over time in a hospital without a pediatric medical emergency team: limitations of before-and-after study designs. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(5):419-423.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bonafide  CP, Roberts  KE, Priestley  MA,  et al.  Development of a pragmatic measure for evaluating and optimizing rapid response systems. Pediatrics. 2012;129(4):e874-e881.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Duncan  H, Hutchison  J, Parshuram  CS.  The Pediatric Early Warning System score: a severity of illness score to predict urgent medical need in hospitalized children. J Crit Care. 2006;21(3):271-278.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Parshuram  CS, Hutchison  J, Middaugh  K.  Development and initial validation of the Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System score. Crit Care. 2009;13(4):R135.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Parshuram  CS, Duncan  HP, Joffe  AR,  et al.  Multicentre validation of the bedside paediatric early warning system score: a severity of illness score to detect evolving critical illness in hospitalised children. Crit Care. 2011;15(4):R184.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pollack  MM, Patel  KM, Ruttimann  UE.  PRISM III: an updated Pediatric Risk of Mortality score. Crit Care Med. 1996;24(5):743-752.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Singer  JD, Willett  JB. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003.
Wagner  AK, Soumerai  SB, Zhang  F, Ross-Degnan  D.  Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2002;27(4):299-309.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gardner  W, Mulvey  EP, Shaw  EC.  Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychol Bull. 1995;118(3):392-404.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lawless  JF.  Negative binomial and mixed Poisson regression. Can J Stat. 1987;15(3):209-225. doi:10.2307/3314912.
Link to Article
Sharek  PJ, Parast  LM, Leong  K,  et al.  Effect of a rapid response team on hospital-wide mortality and code rates outside the ICU in a children’s hospital. JAMA. 2007;298(19):2267-2274.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Butcher  BW, Vittinghoff  E, Maselli  J, Auerbach  AD.  Impact of proactive rounding by a rapid response team on patient outcomes at an academic medical center. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(1):7-12.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Collett  D. Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research.2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press; 2003.
Harris  PA, Taylor  R, Thielke  R, Payne  J, Gonzalez  N, Conde  JG.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap): a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Concato  J, Feinstein  AR, Holford  TR.  The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(3):201-210.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brilli  RJ, Gibson  R, Luria  JW,  et al.  Implementation of a medical emergency team in a large pediatric teaching hospital prevents respiratory and cardiopulmonary arrests outside the intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2007;8(3):236-247.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Zenker  P, Schlesinger  A, Hauck  M,  et al.  Implementation and impact of a rapid response team in a children’s hospital. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007;33(7):418-425.
PubMed
Hunt  EA, Zimmer  KP, Rinke  ML,  et al.  Transition from a traditional code team to a medical emergency team and categorization of cardiopulmonary arrests in a children’s center. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162(2):117-122.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tibballs  J, Kinney  S.  Reduction of hospital mortality and of preventable cardiac arrest and death on introduction of a pediatric medical emergency team. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2009;10(3):306-312.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hanson  CC, Randolph  GD, Erickson  JA,  et al.  A reduction in cardiac arrests and duration of clinical instability after implementation of a paediatric rapid response system. Postgrad Med J. 2010;86(1015):314-318.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kotsakis  A, Lobos  A-T, Parshuram  C,  et al; Ontario Pediatric Critical Care Response Team Collaborative.  Implementation of a multicenter rapid response system in pediatric academic hospitals is effective. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):72-78.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chan  PS, Jain  R, Nallmothu  BK, Berg  RA, Sasson  C.  Rapid response teams: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(1):18-26.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Slonim  AD, Khandelwal  S, He  J,  et al.  Characteristics associated with pediatric inpatient death. Pediatrics. 2010;125(6):1208-1216.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Parshuram  CS, Bayliss  A, Reimer  J, Middaugh  K, Blanchard  N.  Implementing the Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System in a community hospital: a prospective observational study. Paediatr Child Health. 2011;16(3):e18-e22.
PubMed
Brady  PW, Muething  S, Kotagal  U,  et al.  Improving situation awareness to reduce unrecognized clinical deterioration and serious safety events. Pediatrics. 2013;131(1):e298-e308.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Winters  BD, Pronovost  PJ.  Rapid response systems: should we still question their implementation? J Hosp Med. 2013;8(5):278-281.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Zeger  SL, Irizarry  R, Peng  RD.  On time series analysis of public health and biomedical data. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:57-79.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shadish  WR, Cook  TD, Campbell  DT. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference.2nd ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth; 2001.

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

2,275 Views
3 Citations

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
×