Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar;66(3):401-407.
doi: 10.1111/aas.14017. Epub 2021 Dec 27.

Rapid response teams-how and who? A protocol for a randomised clinical trial evaluating the composition of the efferent limb of the rapid response system

Morten B Føns-Sønderskov  1 , Chris Subbe  2 , Anne Marie Kodal  1 , Gitte Bunkenborg  3 , Morten H Bestle  1   4
Affiliations

Rapid response teams-how and who? A protocol for a randomised clinical trial evaluating the composition of the efferent limb of the rapid response system

Morten B Føns-Sønderskov et al. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2022 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Many patients experiencing deterioration have documented deviation of vital signs prior to the deterioration event. Increasing focus on these patients led to the rapid response systems and their configuration with afferent and efferent limbs. The two most prevalent team constellations in the efferent limb are the medical emergency team (MET), usually led by a doctor, and the critical care outreach team (CCOT), usually led by a nurse. The two constellations have not previously been examined in a comparative clinical trial.

Methods: This is a single centre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of MET vs CCOT. All patients will be randomised at the time of the call. The intervention group will be the critical care outreach team. The primary outcome is mortality at 30 days and the occurrence of serious adverse events. All patients will be followed for 90 days. We aim to detect or reject a change of 7% in mortality whilst accepting a type I error of 5 and type II error of 20, using a sample size of maximum of 2000 individual patients.

Discussion: There is evidence supporting a benefit for the patient when using rapid response systems; however, earlier randomised studies are marked by cross-contamination and selection bias. Previous studies have primarily examined the effect of RRS on hospital cardiac arrests (IHCA) and mortality. Our study will be examining the effect on intensive care unit admissions as well as the ICHA and mortality.

Conclusion: This study may highlight potential benefits of specific configurations of rapid response systems and their impact on safety outcomes.

Keywords: critical care outreach; medical emergency team; patient safety; rapid response systems; rapid response teams.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Kause J, Smith G, Prytherch D, Parr M, Flabouris A, Hillman K. A comparison of antecedents to cardiac arrests, deaths and emergency intensive care admissions in Australia and New Zealand, and the United Kingdom-the ACADEMIA study. Resuscitation. 2004;62(3):275-282. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.05.016
    1. Andersen LW, Kim WY, Chase M, et al. The prevalence and significance of abnormal vital signs prior to in-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2016;98:112-117. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.08.016
    1. Schein RMH, Hazday N, Pena M, Ruben BH, Sprung CL. Clinical antecedents to in-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest. Chest. 1990;98(6):1388-1392. doi:10.1378/chest.98.6.1388
    1. DeVita MA, Smith GB, Adam SK, et al. “Identifying the hospitalised patient in crisis”-a consensus conference on the afferent limb of rapid response systems. Resuscitation. 2010;81(4):375-382. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.12.008
    1. 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. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000235743.38172.6E

Publication types

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources