Early prognostic value of the medical emergency team calling criteria in patients admitted to intensive care from the emergency department

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the early prognostic value of the medical emergency team (MET) calling criteria in patients admitted to intensive care from the emergency department. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Emergency department and department of intensive care medicine of a 960-bed tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 452 consecutive adult patients admitted to intensive care from the emergency department from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2004. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: MET calling criteria were retrospectively extracted from patient records, and the sum of positive criteria was calculated for the first hour in the emergency department (METinitial) and subsequently until admission to the intensive care unit in a series of time periods. The maximum number of positive MET calling criteria during any time period was defined (METmax). Logistic regression analysis revealed METinitial (odds ratio [OR] 3.392, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.534-4.540) and METmax (OR 3.867, 95% CI 2.816-5.312) to be significant predictors of hospital mortality, the need for mechanical ventilation (METinitial: OR 4.151, 95% CI 3.53-4.652; METmax: OR 4.292, 95% CI 3.151-5.846), and occurrence of hemodynamic instability (METinitial: OR 1.548, 95% CI 1.258-1.905; METmax: OR 1.685, 95% CI 1.355-2.094) (all p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: MET scores collected early after admission or throughout the stay in the emergency department allow for simple identification of patients at risk of unfavorable outcome during the subsequent intensive care unit stay.

Safety climate and its association with office type and team involvement in primary care

OBJECTIVE To assess differences in safety climate perceptions between occupational groups and types of office organization in primary care. METHODS Primary care physicians and nurses working in outpatient offices were surveyed about safety climate. Explorative factor analysis was performed to determine the factorial structure. Differences in mean climate scores between staff groups and types of office were tested. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine predictors for a 'favorable' safety climate. RESULTS 630 individuals returned the survey (response rate, 50%). Differences between occupational groups were observed in the means of the 'team-based error prevention'-scale (physician 4.0 vs. nurse 3.8, P < 0.001). Medical centers scored higher compared with single-handed offices and joint practices on the 'team-based error prevention'-scale (4.3 vs. 3.8 vs. 3.9, P < 0.001) but less favorable on the 'rules and risks'-scale (3.5 vs. 3.9 vs. 3.7, P < 0.001). Characteristics on the individual and office level predicted favorable 'team-based error prevention'-scores. Physicians (OR = 0.4, P = 0.01) and less experienced staff (OR 0.52, P = 0.04) were less likely to provide favorable scores. Individuals working at medical centers were more likely to provide positive scores compared with single-handed offices (OR 3.33, P = 0.001). The largest positive effect was associated with at least monthly team meetings (OR 6.2, P < 0.001) and participation in quality circles (OR 4.49, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Results indicate that frequent quality circle participation and team meetings involving all team members are effective ways to strengthen safety climate in terms of team-based strategies and activities in error prevention.

Intensive care without walls - introduction of a Medical Emergency Team system in a Swiss tertiary care centre.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY To improve the response of deteriorating patients during their hospital stay, the University Hospital Bern has introduced a Medical Emergency Team (MET). Aim of this retrospective cohort study is to review the preceding factors, patient characteristics, process parameters and their correlation to patient outcomes of MET calls since the introduction of the team. METHODS Data on patient characteristics, parameters related to MET activation and intervention and patient outcomes were evaluated. A Vital Sign Score (VSS), which is defined as the sum of the occurrence of each vital sign abnormalities, was calculated for all physiological parameters pre MET event, during event and correlation with hospital outcomes. RESULTS A total of 1,628 MET calls in 1,317 patients occurred; 262 (19.9%) of patients with MET calls during their hospital stay died. The VSS pre MET event (odds ratio [OR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50-2.13; AUROC 0.63; all p <0.0001) and during the MET call (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.41-1.83; AUROC 0.62; all p <0.0001) were significantly correlated to patient outcomes. A significant increase in MET calls from 5.2 to 16.5 per 1000 hospital admissions (p <0.0001) and a decrease in cardiac arrest calls in the MET perimeter from 1.6 in 2008 to 0.8 per 1000 admissions was observed during the study period (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS The VSS is a significant predictor of mortality in patients assessed by the MET. Increasing MET utilisation coincided with a decrease in cardiac arrest calls in the MET perimeter.

Critical incident monitoring in paediatric and adult critical care: from reporting to improved patient outcomes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Critical incident reporting alone does not necessarily improve patient safety or even patient outcomes. Substantial improvement has been made by focusing on the further two steps of critical incident monitoring, that is, the analysis of critical incidents and implementation of system changes. The system approach to patient safety had an impact on the view about the patient's role in safety. This review aims to analyse recent advances in the technique of reporting, the analysis of reported incidents, and the implementation of actual system improvements. It also explores how families should be approached about safety issues. RECENT FINDINGS: It is essential to make as many critical incidents as possible known to the intensive care team. Several factors have been shown to increase the reporting rate: anonymity, regular feedback about the errors reported, and the existence of a safety climate. Risk scoring of critical incident reports and root cause analysis may help in the analysis of incidents. Research suggests that patients can be successfully involved in safety. SUMMARY: A persisting high number of reported incidents is anticipated and regarded as continuing good safety culture. However, only the implementation of system changes, based on incident reports, and also involving the expertise of patients and their families, has the potential to improve patient outcome. Hard outcome criteria, such as standardized mortality ratio, have not yet been shown to improve as a result of critical incident monitoring.

Perinatal care at the limit of viability between 22 and 26 completed weeks of gestation in Switzerland. 2011 revision of the Swiss recommendations

Perinatal care of pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery and of preterm infants born at the limit of viability (22-26 completed weeks of gestation) requires a multidisciplinary approach by an experienced perinatal team. Limited precision in the determination of both gestational age and foetal weight, as well as biological variability may significantly affect the course of action chosen in individual cases. The decisions that must be taken with the pregnant women and on behalf of the preterm infant in this context are complex and have far-reaching consequences. When counselling pregnant women and their partners, neonatologists and obstetricians should provide them with comprehensive information in a sensitive and supportive way to build a basis of trust. The decisions are developed in a continuing dialogue between all parties involved (physicians, midwives, nursing staff and parents) with the principal aim to find solutions that are in the infant's and pregnant woman's best interest. Knowledge of current gestational age-specific mortality and morbidity rates and how they are modified by prenatally known prognostic factors (estimated foetal weight, sex, exposure or nonexposure to antenatal corticosteroids, single or multiple births) as well as the application of accepted ethical principles form the basis for responsible decision-making. Communication between all parties involved plays a central role. The members of the interdisciplinary working group suggest that the care of preterm infants with a gestational age between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks should generally be limited to palliative care. Obstetric interventions for foetal indications such as Caesarean section delivery are usually not indicated. In selected cases, for example, after 23 weeks of pregnancy have been completed and several of the above mentioned prenatally known prognostic factors are favourable or well informed parents insist on the initiation of life-sustaining therapies, active obstetric interventions for foetal indications and provisional intensive care of the neonate may be reasonable. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 24 0/7 and 24 6/7 weeks, it can be difficult to determine whether the burden of obstetric interventions and neonatal intensive care is justified given the limited chances of success of such a therapy. In such cases, the individual constellation of prenatally known factors which impact on prognosis can be helpful in the decision making process with the parents. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 25 0/7 and 25 6/7 weeks, foetal surveillance, obstetric interventions for foetal indications and neonatal intensive care measures are generally indicated. However, if several prenatally known prognostic factors are unfavourable and the parents agree, primary non-intervention and neonatal palliative care can be considered. All pregnant women with threatening preterm delivery or premature rupture of membranes at the limit of viability must be transferred to a perinatal centre with a level III neonatal intensive care unit no later than 23 0/7 weeks of gestation, unless emergency delivery is indicated. An experienced neonatology team should be involved in all deliveries that take place after 23 0/7 weeks of gestation to help to decide together with the parents if the initiation of intensive care measures appears to be appropriate or if preference should be given to palliative care (i.e., primary non-intervention). In doubtful situations, it can be reasonable to initiate intensive care and to admit the preterm infant to a neonatal intensive care unit (i.e., provisional intensive care). The infant's clinical evolution and additional discussions with the parents will help to clarify whether the life-sustaining therapies should be continued or withdrawn. Life support is continued as long as there is reasonable hope for survival and the infant's burden of intensive care is acceptable. If, on the other hand, the health car...

The Hamburg-Model of Integrated Care for Patients with Psychosis: Part 1

Objective: The "Hamburg model" designates an integrated care model for severely ill patients with psychotic disorders financed by the health insurance system in accordance with § 140 SGB V.Methods: It comprises comprehensive and long-term treatment within a regional network of the psychosis center of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) and private psychiatrists. The treatment model consists of therapeutic assertive community treatment (ACT) provided by a highly specialized treatment team and need-adapted in- and outpatient care.Results and conclusions: The present article summarizes the disease- and treatment-specific rationales for the model development as well as the model structure and treatment contents. The article further summarizes the effectiveness and efficiency results of a study comparing the Hamburg model and treatment as usual (without ACT) within a 12-month follow-up study (ACCESS trial).

The Hamburg-Model of Integrated Care for Patients with Psychosis: Part 2

Objective: Since the beginning of the integrated care model for severely ill patients with psychotic disorders ("Hamburg model") in 2007 different clinical parameters have been consecutively assessed within a naturalistic, observational, prospective study.Methods: Clinical outcome of the 2-year and 4-year follow-ups of n = 158 patients.Results: A significant and ongoing improvement of psychopathology, severity of illness, functional outcome, quality of life and satisfaction with care in this sample of severely ill and merely chronic patients with psychosis was shown. Moreover, medication adherence improved and quality and quantity of outpatient treatment increased.Conclusion: The ongoing psychosocial stabilisation of the patients most likely result from a combination of various factors: continuity of care, multimodal and individualized care, therapeutic specialisation and the multidisciplinary ACT team. Results provide clinical and scientific evidence for future implementations of the integrated care model "Hamburg Model" for the treatment of psychosis.