4.6 Article

Introduction of a Rapid Response System at a United States Veterans Affairs Hospital Reduced Cardiac Arrests

期刊

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
卷 111, 期 3, 页码 679-686

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181e9c3f3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the impact of a rapid response system on cardiac arrest rates and mortality in a United States veteran population. METHODS: We describe a prospective analysis of cardiac arrests in 9 months before and 27 months after institution of a rapid response system, and retrospective analysis of mortality 3.5 years before the intervention and 27 months after the intervention. The study included all inpatients from a university-affiliated United States Veterans Affairs Medical Center, before and after implementation of a rapid response system, including an educational program, patient calling criteria, and a physician-led medical emergency team. Primary end points were hospital-wide cardiac arrests and mortality rates normalized to hospital discharges. Comparisons of event rates between various time points during the implementation process were made by analysis of variance. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-eight calls were made to the medical emergency team in the time period studied. Compared with preintervention time points, cardiac arrests were reduced by 57%, amounting to a reduction of 5.6 cardiac arrests per 1000 hospital discharges (P < 0.01). Mortality was reduced during the intervention, but this was attributable to a natural decrease occurring over all phases of the study. CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in the rate of cardiac arrests was realized with this intervention, as well as a trend toward lower mortality. We estimate that 51 arrests were prevented in the timeframe studied. Our results suggest that further reductions in morbidity can be realized by expansion of rapid response systems throughout the Veterans Affairs network. (Anesth Analg 2010;111:679-86)

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

4.6
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