• Iwan A Meynaar, Harriet van Dijk, Steven Sleeswijk Visser, Margot Verheijen, Lilian Dawson, and Peter L Tangkau.
• Reinier de Graaf Groep, afd. Intensive Care, Delft, the Netherlands. meynaar@rdgg.nl
• Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2011 Jan 1;155:A3257.

ObjectiveHospitalized patients are at risk for adverse events such as unexpected cardiac arrest or admission to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Prior to these adverse events these patients often have derangements in vital signs that are not recognized and treated adequately. To identify and treat those patients at risk, our hospital implemented a rapid response system in 2004. The purpose of this paper is to describe implementation and results of our rapid response system.DesignProspective cohort study.MethodThe implementation of the rapid response system started by training all doctors and nurses to score vital signs using a dedicated score card. If a patient scores 3 or more points, the patients' treating physician has to see the patient and - if necessary - call the medical emergency team (MET), consisting of an ICU physician and an ICU nurse. We analyzed all consecutive MET calls in the period January 2005-December 2009.ResultsA total of 1058 MET calls for 981 patients were analyzed. In 606 patients (57.3%) it was decided to transfer the patient to a higher dependency unit, in most cases the ICU. In 353 patients (33.4%) treatment could be continued on the ward. In 88 patients (8.4%) it was decided that ICU treatment would not be beneficial and limits on treatment were put in place. Of the 981 patients, 255 (26.0%) died in hospital.ConclusionIn our hospital the rapid response system has developed into an important tool for the early identification and treatment of patients at risk. However, our data cannot prove the efficacy of the rapid response system in terms of reducing hospital mortality.

15 keywords...

hide…