3.8 Article

Effect of a rapid response system on code rates and in-hospital mortality in medical wards

Journal

ACUTE AND CRITICAL CARE
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 246-254

Publisher

KOREAN SOC CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
DOI: 10.4266/acc.2019.00668

Keywords

cardiopulmonary resuscitation; hospital mortality; hospital rapid response team; internal medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To determine the effects of implementing a rapid response system (RRS) on code rates and in-hospital mortality in medical wards. Methods: This retrospective study included adult patients admitted to medical wards at Seoul National University Hospital between July 12, 2016 and March 12, 2018; the sample comprised 4,224 patients admitted 10 months before RRS implementation and 4,168 patients admitted 10 months following RRS implementation. Our RRS only worked during the daytime (7 AM to 7 PM) on weekdays. We compared code rates and in-hospital mortality rates between the preintervention and postintervention groups. Results: There were 62.3 RRS activations per 1,000 admissions. The most common reasons for RRS activation were tachypnea or hypopnea (44%), hypoxia (31%), and tachycardia or bradycardia (21%). Code rates from medical wards during RRS operating times significantly decreased from 3.55 to 0.96 per 1,000 admissions (adjusted odds ratio NOR), 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10 to 0.87; P=0.028) after RRS implementation. However, code rates from medical wards during RRS nonoperating times did not differ between the preintervention and postintervention groups (2.60 vs. 3.12 per 1,000 admissions; aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.55 to 2.76; P=0.614). In-hospital mortality significantly decreased from 56.3 to 42.7 per 1,000 admissions after RRS implementation (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.97; P = 0.024). Conclusions: Implementation of an RRS was associated with significant reductions in code rates during RRS operating times and in-hospital mortality in medical wards.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available