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
. 2024 Jun 10;13(2):e002664.
doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002664.

Development of a novel rapid response event review process for quality improvement

Affiliations

Development of a novel rapid response event review process for quality improvement

Michael Osnard et al. BMJ Open Qual. .

Abstract

Introduction: Rapid response team (RRT) and code activation events occur relatively commonly in inpatient settings. RRT systems have been the subject of a significant amount of analysis, although this has been largely focused on the impact of RRT system implementation and RRT events on patient outcomes. There is reason to believe that the structured assessment of RRT and code events may be an effective way to identify opportunities for system improvement, although no standardised approach to event analysis is widely accepted. We developed and refined a protocolised system of RRT and code event review, focused on sustainable, timely and high value event analysis meant to inform ongoing improvement activities.

Methods: A group of clinicians with expertise in process and quality improvement created a protocolised analytic plan for rapid response event review, piloted and then iteratively optimised a systematic process which was applied to all subsequent cases to be reviewed.

Results: Hospitalist reviewers were recruited and trained in a methodical approach. Each reviewer performed a chart review to summarise RRT events, and collect specific variables for each case (coding). Coding was then reviewed for concordance, at monthly interdisciplinary group meetings and 'Action Items' were identified and considered for implementation. In any 12-month period starting in 2021, approximately 12-15 distinct cases per month were reviewed and coded, offering ample opportunities to identify trends and patterns.

Conclusion: We have developed an innovative process for ongoing review of RRT-Code events. The review process is easy to implement and has allowed for the timely identification of high value improvement opportunities.

Keywords: electronic health records; healthcare quality improvement; hospital medicine; patient safety; quality improvement methodologies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the newly developed systematic protocolised review process of rapid response team activation events.

Similar articles

References

    1. Jones DA, DeVita MA, Bellomo R. Rapid-response teams. N Engl J Med 2011;365:139–46. 10.1056/NEJMra0910926 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jones D, Drennan K, et al. , ANZICS-CORE MET dose Investigators . Rapid response team composition, Resourcing and calling criteria in Australia. Resuscitation 2012;83:563–7. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.10.023 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Psirides A, Hill J, Hurford S. A review of rapid response team activation parameters in New Zealand hospitals. Resuscitation 2013;84:1040–4. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.01.022 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Reardon PM, Fernando SM, Murphy K, et al. . Factors associated with delayed rapid response team activation. J Crit Care 2018;46:73–8. 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.04.010 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shappell C, Snyder A, Edelson DP, et al. . Predictors of in-hospital mortality after rapid response team calls in a 274 hospital nationwide sample. Crit Care Med 2018;46:1041–8. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002926 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources