4.5 Article

Experience of Pediatric Rapid Response Team in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Pakistan

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 77, 期 3, 页码 273-276

出版社

ALL INDIA INST MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1007/s12098-010-0032-2

关键词

Implementation; Rapid response team; Child

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To report our experience before and after implementation of pediatric rapid response team (RRT) in pediatric wards of a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan. Methods. An audit of RRT activity from December 2007 to August 2008 was conducted and reviewed patient diagnoses at the time of call placement, interventions done and post-intervention clinical outcomes. Clinical Outcomes in the nine months before RRT implementation were compared with those in the first operational nine months after RRT. Results. Eighty-three calls were generated during the post-intervention study period of 9-month (21 calls/1000 admissions). The median age of patients was 27 months; 37% calls were for infants. The majority of patients were under care of medical services (93% vs 7% under care of surgical services). Greater numbers of calls were made during 0800-1600 hours (45%). Respiratory issues were the most common reason for activation of RRT. Because of early interventions, majority (61%) of patients avoided unnecessary PICU stay and expenditure; only 17% required mechanical ventilation in PICU. The code rate per 1000 admissions decreased from 5.2 (pre-RRT) to 2.7 (post-RRT) (p=0.08; OR 1.88(95% CI 0.9 -3.93). The mortality rate of patients admitted in PICU from wards decreased from 50% to 15% (p=0.25; OR 1.64 (95% CI 0.63 -4.29). Conclusion. Our experience with implementation of RRT was associated with reduction in cardiorespiratory arrest, mortality and saved a lot of PICU resource utilization. It is an excellent patient-safety initiative especially in resource-constrained countries by bringing PICU reflexes outside the PICU. [Indian J Pediatr 2010; 77 (3) : 273-276] E-mail: anwar.haq@aku.edu

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据