The level of documentation of vital signs in many hospitals is extremely poor, and respiratory rate, in particular, is often not recorded. There is substantial evidence that an abnormal respiratory ...

Studies have established that physiologic instability and services mismatching precede adverse events in hospitalized patients. In response to these considerations, the concept of a Rapid Response System (RRS) has emerged. The responding team is commonly known as a medical emergency team (MET), rapid response team (RRT), or critical care outreach (CCO). Studies show that an RRS may improve outcome, but questions remain regarding the benefit, design elements, and advisability of implementing a MET system. In June 2005 an International Conference on Medical Emergency Teams (ICMET) included experts in patient safety, hospital medicine, critical care medicine, and METs. Seven of 25 had no experience with an RRS, and the remainder had experience with one of the three major forms of RRS. After preconference telephone and e-mail conversations by the panelists in which questions to be discussed were characterized, literature reviewed, and preliminary answers created, the panelists convened for 2 days to create a consensus document. Four major content areas were addressed: What is a MET response? Is there a MET syndrome? What are barriers to METS? How should outcome be measured? Panelists considered whether all hospitals should implement an RRS. Patients needing an RRS intervention are suddenly critically ill and have a mismatch of resources to needs. Hospitals should implement an RRS, which consists of four elements: an afferent, "crisis detection" and "response triggering" mechanism; an efferent, predetermined rapid response team; a governance/administrative structure to supply and organize resources; and a mechanism to evaluate crisis antecedents and promote hospital process improvement to prevent future events.

Despite growing interest and urges by leading experts for the routine collection of patient reported outcome (PRO) measures in all general care patients, and in particular cancer patients, there has not been an updated comprehensive review of the evidence regarding the impact of adopting such a strategy on patients, service providers and organisations in an oncologic setting. Based on a critical analysis of the three most recent systematic reviews, the current systematic review developed a six-method strategy in searching and reviewing the most relevant quantitative studies between January 2000 and October 2011 using a set of pre-determined inclusion criteria and theory-based outcome indicators. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to rate the quality and importance of the identified publications, and the synthesis of the evidence was conducted. The 27 identified studies showed strong evidence that the well-implemented PROs improved patient-provider communication and patient satisfaction. There was also growing evidence that it improved the monitoring of treatment response and the detection of unrecognised problems. However, there was a weak or non-existent evidence-base regarding the impact on changes to patient management and improved health outcomes, changes to patient health behaviour, the effectiveness of quality improvement of organisations, and on transparency, accountability, public reporting activities, and performance of the health care system. Despite the existence of significant gaps in the evidence-base, there is growing evidence in support of routine PRO collection in enabling better and patient-centred care in cancer settings.

Background: Commonly used sedatives/analgesics can increase the risk of postoperative complications, including delirium. This double-blinded study assessed the neurobehavioral, hemodynamic, and sedative characteristics of dexmedetomidine compared with morphine-based regimen after cardiac surgery at equivalent levels of sedation and analgesia. Methods: A total of 306 patients at least 60 yr old were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine (0.1-0.7 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1)) or morphine (10-70 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1)) with open-label propofol titrated to a target Motor Activity Assessment Scale of 2-4. Primary outcome was the prevalence of delirium measured daily via Confusion Assessment Method for intensive care. Secondary outcomes included ventilation time, additional sedation/analgesia, and hemodynamic and adverse effects. Results: Of all sedation assessments, 75.2% of dexmedetomidine and 79.6% (P = 0.516) of morphine treatment were in the target range. Delirium incidence was comparable between dexmedetomidine 13 (8.6%) and morphine 22 (15.0%) (relative risk 0.571, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.256-1.099, P = 0.088), however, dexmedetomidine-managed patients spent 3 fewer days (2 [1-7] versus 5 [2-12]) in delirium (95% CI 1.09-6.67, P = 0.0317). The incidence of delirium was significantly less in a small subgroup requiring intraaortic balloon pump and treated with dexmedetomidine (3 of 20 [15%] versus 9 of 25 [36%]) (relative risk 0.416, 95% CI 0.152-0.637, P = 0.001). Dexmedetomidine-treated patients were more likely to be extubated earlier (relative risk 1.27, 95% CI 1.01-1.60, P = 0.040, log-rank P = 0.036), experienced less systolic hypotension (23% versus 38.1%, P = 0.006), required less norepinephrine (P < 0.001), but had more bradycardia (16.45% versus 6.12%, P = 0.006) than morphine treatment. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine reduced the duration but not the incidence of delirium after cardiac surgery with effective analgesia/sedation, less hypotension, less vasopressor requirement, and more bradycardia versus morphine regimen.

To examine the relationship between early emergency team calls and the incidence of serious adverse events--cardiac arrests, deaths, and unplanned admissions to an intensive care unit--in a cluster randomized controlled trial of medical emergency team implementation (the MERIT study). Post hoc analysis of data from cluster randomized controlled trial. Twenty-three public hospitals in Australia and 741,744 patients admitted during the conduct of the study. Attendance by a rapid response system team or cardiac arrest team. The relationship between the proportion of rapid response system team calls that were early emergency team calls (defined as calls not associated with cardiac arrest or death) and the rate (events/1000 admissions) of the adverse events. We analyzed 11,242 serious adverse events and 3700 emergency team calls. For every 10% of increase in the proportion of early emergency team calls there was a 2.0 reduction per 10,000 admissions in unexpected cardiac arrests (95% confidence interval [CI] -2.6 to -1.4), a 2.2 reduction in overall cardiac arrests (95% CI -2.9 to -1.6), and a 0.94 reduction in unexpected deaths (95% CI -1.4 to -0.5). We found no such relationship for unplanned intensive care unit admissions or for the aggregate of unexpected cardiac arrests, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, and unexpected deaths. As the proportion of early emergency team calls increases, the rate of cardiac arrests and unexpected deaths decreases. This inverse relationship provides support for the notion that early review of acutely ill ward patients by an emergency team is desirable.