4.2 Article

Impact of proactive rounding by a rapid response team on patient outcomes at an academic medical center

Journal

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 7-12

Publisher

FRONTLINE MEDICAL COMMUNICATIONS
DOI: 10.1002/jhm.1977

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH
  2. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute [5K24HL098372-02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The impact of rapid response teams (RRT) on patient outcomes remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of proactive rounding by an RRT on outcomes of hospitalized adults discharged from intensive care. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: All adult patients discharged alive from the intensive care unit (ICU) at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center between January 2006 and June 2009. INTERVENTION: Introduction of proactive rounding by an RRT. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included the ICU readmission rate, ICU average length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital mortality of patients discharged from the ICU. Data were obtained from administrative billing databases and analyzed using an interrupted time series (ITS) model. RESULTS: We analyzed 17 months of preintervention data and 25 months of postintervention data. Introduction of proactive rounding by the RRT did not change the ICU readmission rate (6.7% before vs 7.3% after; P = 0.24), the ICU LOS (5.1 days vs 4.9 days; P = 0.24), or the in-hospital mortality of patients discharged from the ICU (6.0% vs 5.5%; P = 0.24). ITS models testing the impact of proactive rounding on secular trends found no improvement in any of the 3 clinical outcomes relative to their preintervention trends. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive rounding by an RRT did not improve patient outcomes, raising further questions about RRT benefits. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2013. (c) 2012 Society of Hospital Medicine

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available