- Email: [email protected]
Comparison of a Critical Care Attending- and Fellow-Run Rapid Response Team With an Internal Medicine Hospitalist- and Resident-Run Rapid Response Team
October 2010, Vol 138, No. 4_MeetingAbstracts Poster Presentations: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 | October 2010
Comparison of a Critical Care Attendingand Fellow-Run Rapid Response Team With an Internal Medicine Hospitalist- and Resident-Run Rapid Response Team Nick Patel, DO; Yuval Hiltzik, DO; Erfan Hussain, MBBS North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Manhasset, NY Chest. 2010;138(4_MeetingAbstracts):288A. doi:10.1378/chest.9900 Abstract PURPOSE: To prevent serious adverse events on hospitalized patients, a rapid response team (RRT) was introduced at our institution. This team is comprised of a physician, critical care nurse and respiratory therapist. 7am-7pm Monday to Friday the physician is a critical care attending and fellow (CCAF). 7pm-7am Monday to Friday and 7am Saturday - 7am Monday the physician is an internal medicine hospitalist and senior medical resident (IMHR). We sought to analyze this system for consistencies between IMHR run RRT and CCAF run RRT. METHODS: Rapid responses (RR) completed from 1/1/09-12/31/09 were reviewed. After excluding cases with incomplete data, RR were arranged as those run by CCAF RRT and IMHR RRT. Endpoints evaluated were reason for RR, patients requiring multiple RR, final outcome of RR and final outcome of admission. RESULTS: 1031 RR were initiated with 878 acceptable for review. 467 RR were run by CCAF and 411 were run by IMHR. Most common reason RR were initiated was respiratory (CCAF:195, IMHR:200) and neurologic (CCAF:114, IMHR:77). CCAF RRT averaged 2.52 minutes to respond and IMHR RRT averaged 2.62 minutes to respond (p=0.23). CCAF RRT averaged 24.50 minutes/RR and IMHR RRT averaged 28.91 minutes/RR (p=0.001).CCAF RRT kept 286 patients (61%) in their room and escalated care in 115 patients (25%) (intensive care unit (ICU):90;19%, telemetry:25;5%). IMHR RRT kept 236 patients (57%) in their room and escalated care in 114 patients (28%) (ICU:98;24%, telemetry:16;4%) (p=0.44).4 patients (0.86%) expired during CCAF RR and 3 patients (0.73%) expired during IMHR RR (p=0.44). 102 patients required repeat RR (CCAF:45;44%, IMHR:57;56%) (p=0.44). 67 of these patients (66%) did not survive to discharge (CCAF:24, IMHR:23). CONCLUSION: CCAF run RRT completed RR faster than IMHR run RRT. RRT run by CCAF is otherwise equivalent to one run by IMHR in regards to time to respond, and outcome of RR and hospital stay. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This analysis suggests that a RRT may be run by an IMHR without differential in outcome compared to a CCAF. DISCLOSURE: Nick Patel, No Financial Disclosure Information; No Product/Research Disclosure Information 12:45 PM - 2:00 PM
Comparison of a Critical Care Attendingand Fellow-Run Rapid Response Team With an Internal Medicine Hospitalist- and Resident-Run Rapid Response Team Nick Patel, DO; Yuval Hiltzik, DO; Erfan Hussain, MBBS North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Manhasset, NY Chest. 2010;138(4_MeetingAbstracts):288A. doi:10.1378/chest.9900 Abstract PURPOSE: To prevent serious adverse events on hospitalized patients, a rapid response team (RRT) was introduced at our institution. This team is comprised of a physician, critical care nurse and respiratory therapist. 7am-7pm Monday to Friday the physician is a critical care attending and fellow (CCAF). 7pm-7am Monday to Friday and 7am Saturday - 7am Monday the physician is an internal medicine hospitalist and senior medical resident (IMHR). We sought to analyze this system for consistencies between IMHR run RRT and CCAF run RRT. METHODS: Rapid responses (RR) completed from 1/1/09-12/31/09 were reviewed. After excluding cases with incomplete data, RR were arranged as those run by CCAF RRT and IMHR RRT. Endpoints evaluated were reason for RR, patients requiring multiple RR, final outcome of RR and final outcome of admission. RESULTS: 1031 RR were initiated with 878 acceptable for review. 467 RR were run by CCAF and 411 were run by IMHR. Most common reason RR were initiated was respiratory (CCAF:195, IMHR:200) and neurologic (CCAF:114, IMHR:77). CCAF RRT averaged 2.52 minutes to respond and IMHR RRT averaged 2.62 minutes to respond (p=0.23). CCAF RRT averaged 24.50 minutes/RR and IMHR RRT averaged 28.91 minutes/RR (p=0.001).CCAF RRT kept 286 patients (61%) in their room and escalated care in 115 patients (25%) (intensive care unit (ICU):90;19%, telemetry:25;5%). IMHR RRT kept 236 patients (57%) in their room and escalated care in 114 patients (28%) (ICU:98;24%, telemetry:16;4%) (p=0.44).4 patients (0.86%) expired during CCAF RR and 3 patients (0.73%) expired during IMHR RR (p=0.44). 102 patients required repeat RR (CCAF:45;44%, IMHR:57;56%) (p=0.44). 67 of these patients (66%) did not survive to discharge (CCAF:24, IMHR:23). CONCLUSION: CCAF run RRT completed RR faster than IMHR run RRT. RRT run by CCAF is otherwise equivalent to one run by IMHR in regards to time to respond, and outcome of RR and hospital stay. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This analysis suggests that a RRT may be run by an IMHR without differential in outcome compared to a CCAF. DISCLOSURE: Nick Patel, No Financial Disclosure Information; No Product/Research Disclosure Information 12:45 PM - 2:00 PM