Michael A. DeVita

Findings of the First Consensus Conference on Medical Emergency Teams

Background:Studies have established that physiologic instability and services mismatching precede adverse events in hospitalized patients. In response to these considerations, the concept of a Rapid Response System (RRS) has emerged. The responding team is commonly known as a medical emergency team (MET), rapid response team (RRT), or critical care outreach (CCO). Studies show that an RRS may improve outcome, but questions remain regarding the benefit, design elements, and advisability of implementing a MET system. Methods:In June 2005 an International Conference on Medical Emergency Teams (ICMET) included experts in patient safety, hospital medicine, critical care medicine, and METs. Seven of 25 had no experience with an RRS, and the remainder had experience with one of the three major forms of RRS. After preconference telephone and e-mail conversations by the panelists in which questions to be discussed were characterized, literature reviewed, and preliminary answers created, the panelists convened for 2 days to create a consensus document. Four major content areas were addressed: What is a MET response? Is there a MET syndrome? What are barriers to METS? How should outcome be measured? Panelists considered whether all hospitals should implement an RRS. Results:Patients needing an RRS intervention are suddenly critically ill and have a mismatch of resources to needs. Hospitals should implement an RRS, which consists of four elements: an afferent, “crisis detection” and “response triggering” mechanism; an efferent, predetermined rapid response team; a governance/administrative structure to supply and organize resources; and a mechanism to evaluate crisis antecedents and promote hospital process improvement to prevent future events.

Report of a National Conference on Donation after cardiac death.

A national conference on organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) was convened to expand the practice of DCD in the continuum of quality end‐of‐life care.

Recommendations for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: The Ethics Committee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

T hese recommendations are intended to provide information and advice for clinicians who deliver end-of-life care in intensive care units (ICUs). The number of deaths that occur in the ICU after the withdrawal of life support is increasing, with one recent survey finding that 90% of patients who die in ICUs now do so after a decision to limit therapy (1). Although there is significant variability in the frequency of withdrawal of life support both within countries (2) and among cultures (3), the general trend is international in scope (4). Nevertheless, most evidence indicates that patients and families remain dissatisfied with the care they receive once a decision has been made to withdraw life support (5). Although intensive care clinicians traditionally have seen their goals as curing disease and restoring health and function, these goals must now expand when necessary to also include assuring patients of a “good death.” Just as developments in knowledge and technology have dramatically enhanced our ability to restore patients to health, similar developments now make it possible for almost all patients to have a death that is dignified and free from pain. The management of patients at the end of life can be divided into two phases. The first concerns the process of shared decision-making that leads from the pursuit of cure or recovery to the pursuit of comfort and freedom from pain. The second concerns the actions that are taken once this shift in goals has been made and focuses on both the humanistic and technical skills that must be enlisted to ensure that the needs of the patient and family are met. Although both of these issues are critically important in end-oflife care, the decision-making process is not unique to the ICU environment and has been addressed by others (6 –11). These recommendations, therefore, do not deal primarily with the process that leads to the decision to forego lifeprolonging treatments but rather focus on the implementation of that decision, with particular emphasis on the ICU environment. This division of the process into two phases is necessarily somewhat artificial. Patients and families do not suddenly switch from the hope for survival and cure to the acceptance of death and pursuit of comfort. This process happens gradually over varying periods of time ranging from hours to weeks. Similarly, the forgoing of life-sustaining treatments rarely happens all at once and is likewise a stepwise process that parallels the shift in goals. Although acknowledging the relationship between the process of decision-making and the corresponding actions, these guidelines will focus on the latter. These recommendations are written from the emerging perspective that palliative care and intensive care are not mutually exclusive options but rather should be coexistent (12–14). All intensive care patients are at an increased risk of mortality and can benefit from inclusion of the principles of palliative care in their management. The degree to which treatments are focused on cure vs. palliation depends on the clinical situation, but in principle both are always present to some degree. Figure 1 illustrates a useful paradigm for the integration of palliative care and curative care over the course of a patient’s illness. Although many patients are best served by transfer to other environments (e.g., home, hospice, or ward) that may be more conducive to palliative care, some patients are so dependent on ICU technology at the end of life that transfer is not possible. For those who are expected to survive for only a short time after the removal of life-sustaining technology, transfer of the patient to a new environment with new caregivers is awkward and may disrupt the patient’s medical care. For these reasons, among others, intensive care clinicians must become as skilled and knowledgeable at forgoing life-sustaining treatments as they are at delivering care aimed at survival and cure.

Rapid-Response Teams

Rapid-response teams aim to care for inpatients in whom acute respiratory, neurologic, or cardiac insufficiency is developing. This review describes the prevalence and consequences of sudden critical illness outside the ICU and discusses the rationale for rapid-response systems.

Use of medical emergency team responses to reduce hospital cardiopulmonary arrests

Background: Medical emergency team (MET) responses have been implemented to reduce inpatient mortality, but data on their efficacy are sparse and there have been no reports to date from US hospitals. Objectives: To determine how the incidence and outcomes of cardiac arrests have changed following increased use of MET. Methods: Objective criteria for MET activation were created and disseminated as part of a crisis management program, after which there was a rapid and sustained increase in the use of MET. A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes was performed to compare the incidence and mortality of cardiopulmonary arrest before and after the increased use of MET. Results: A retrospective analysis of 3269 MET responses and 1220 cardiopulmonary arrests over 6.8 years showed an increase in MET responses from 13.7 to 25.8 per 1000 admissions (p<0.0001) after instituting objective activation criteria. There was a coincident 17% decrease in the incidence of cardiopulmonary arrests from 6.5 to 5.4 per 1000 admissions (p = 0.016). The proportion of fatal arrests was similar before and after the increase in use of MET. Conclusions: Increased use of MET may be associated with fewer cardiopulmonary arrests.

Improving medical emergency team (MET) performance using a novel curriculum and a computerized human patient simulator

Problem: Advance cardiac life support (ACLS) training does not address coordination of team resources to improve the ability of teams to deliver needed treatments reliably and rapidly. Our objective was to use a human simulation training educational environment to develop multidisciplinary team skills and improve medical emergency team (MET) performance. We report findings of a crisis team training course that is focused on organization. Setting: Large center for human simulation training at a university affiliated tertiary care hospital. Participants: Ten courses were delivered and 138 clinically experienced individuals were trained (69 critical care nurses, 48 physicians, and 21 respiratory therapists). All participants were ACLS trained and experienced in responding to cardiac arrest situations. Course design: Each course had four components: (1) a web based presentation and pretest before the course; (2) a brief reinforcing didactic session on the day of the course; (3) three of five different simulated scenarios; each followed by (4) debriefing and analysis with the team. Three of five simulator scenarios were used; scenario selection and order was random. Trainees did not repeat any scenario or role during the training. Participants were video recorded to assist debriefing. Debriefing focused on reinforcing organizational aspects of team performance: assuming designated roles independently, completing goals (tasks) assigned to each role, and directed communication. Measures for improvement: Participants graded their performance of specific organizational and treatment tasks within specified time intervals by consensus. Simulator “survival” depended on supporting oxygenation, ventilation, circulation within 60 seconds, and delivering the definitive treatment within 3 minutes. Effects of change: Simulated survival (following predetermined criteria for death) increased from 0% to 89%. The initial team task completion rate was 10–45% and rose to 80–95% during the third session. Lessons learnt: Training multidisciplinary teams to organize using simulation technology is feasible. This preliminary report warrants more detailed inquiry.

Swallowing disorders in patients with prolonged orotracheal intubation or tracheostomy tubes

Eleven patients were tested for swallowing dysfunction after prolonged orotracheal intubation. Ten had a tracheostomy tube. Mean duration of orotracheal intubation was 19.9 days, mean age 65 yr, and no patient had a concomitant neurologic deficit. All patients had a modified barium swallow with videofluoroscopy. All patients had at least one defect of 11 defects characterized. There was a mean of six defects/patient. The most common defects were delayed triggering of the swallow response (present in all patients) and pharyngeal pooling of contrast material (n = 9). Follow-up videofluoroscopy was performed in five patients (all had improved) with mean defects decreasing from 6.1 to 2.8/patient. With one exception, no patient had any defect that was worse than mild in severity. We concluded that prolonged orotracheal intubation with or without tracheostomy may cause prolonged and severe swallowing dysfunction. The deficits improve with time. The presence of a gag reflex does not confer protection against aspiration of pharyngeal contrast.

Simulation-based crisis team training for multidisciplinary obstetric providers

Background: The use of team training programs is promising with regards to their ability to impact knowledge, attitudes, and behavior about team skills. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a simulation-based team training program called Obstetric Crisis Team Training Program (OBCTT) (based on the original training program of Crisis Team Training) framed within a multilevel team theoretical model. We hypothesized that participation in OBCTT would positively impact 10 variables: individuals knowledge (about team process and obstetric emergency care); confidence and competence in handling obstetric emergencies; and participant attitudes (toward the utility of a rapid response team, simulation technology as a teaching methodology, the utility of team skills in the workplace, comfort in assuming team roles; and individual and team performance). Improvement of objectively measured team performance in a simulated environment was also assessed. Methods: Twenty-two perinatal health care professionals (attending physicians, nurses, resident, and nurse midwives) volunteered to participate in this pretest-posttest study design. All participants were given an online module to study before attending a 4-hour training session. Training consisted of participation in four standardized, simulated crisis scenarios with a female birthing simulator mannequin. Team simulations were video recorded. Debriefings were conducted after each simulation by having team members review the video and discuss team behaviors and member skills. Self-report measures of perinatal and team knowledge as well as several attitude surveys were given at the beginning and again at the end of the training session. A postsimulation attitude survey was administered immediately after the first and last simulation, and a course reaction survey was administered at the end of the training program. Objective task completion scores were computed after each simulation to assess performance. Results: There were significant (P < 0.004) improvements in three of the outcome variables, after controlling for type I error with Bonferronis correction; attitudes toward competence in handling obstetric emergencies (t = 1.6), as well as individual (t = 4.2), and team performance (t = 4.1). The remaining 6 variables, attitude toward simulation technology, attitude toward the rapid response team; confidence in handling obstetric emergencies; utility of team skills in the workplace; comfort in assuming various team roles; and knowledge, were not statistically significant. Overall task completion from the first to the last simulation (X2F, df = 3, n = 3, 8.2, P = 0.042) substantially improved (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The crisis team training model is applicable to obstetric emergencies. Trainees exhibit a positive change in attitude; perception of individual and team performance, and overall team performance in a simulated environment. The ability of individuals to accurately assess their performance improved as a result of training.

Defining the Incidence of Cardiorespiratory Instability in Patients in Step-down Units Using an Electronic Integrated Monitoring System

BACKGROUND To our knowledge, detection of cardiorespiratory instability using noninvasive monitoring via electronic integrated monitoring systems (IMSs) in intermediate or step-down units (SDUs) has not been described. We undertook this study to characterize respiratory status in an SDU population, to define features of cardiorespiratory instability, and to evaluate an IMS index value that should trigger medical emergency team (MET) activation. METHODS This descriptive, prospective, single-blinded, observational study evaluated all patients in a 24-bed SDU in a university medical center during 8 weeks from November 16, 2006, to January 11, 2007. An IMS (BioSign; OBS Medical, Carmel, Indiana) was inserted into the standard noninvasive hardwired monitoring system and used heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry to develop a single neural networked signal, or BioSign Index (BSI). Data were analyzed for cardiorespiratory instability according to BSI trigger value and local MET activation criteria. Staff were blinded to BSI data collected in 326 patients (total census). RESULTS Data for 18 248 hours of continuous monitoring were captured. Data for peripheral oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry were absent in 30% of monitored hours despite being a standard of care. Cardiorespiratory status in most patients (243 of 326 [74.5%]) was stable throughout their SDU stay, and instability in the remaining patients (83 of 326 [25%]) was exhibited infrequently. We recorded 111 MET activation criteria events caused by cardiorespiratory instability in 59 patients, but MET activation for this cause occurred in only 7 patients. All MET events were detected by BSI in advance (mean, 6.3 hours) in a bimodal distribution (>6 hours and < or =45 minutes). CONCLUSIONS Cardiorespiratory instability, while uncommon and often unrecognized, was preceded by elevation of the IMS index. Continuous noninvasive monitoring augmented by IMS provides sensitive detection of early instability in patients in SDUs.

Use of medical emergency team (MET) responses to detect medical errors

Background: No previous studies have investigated whether medical emergency team (MET) responses can be used to detect medical errors. Objectives: To determine whether review of MET responses can be used as a surveillance method for detecting medical errors. Methods: : Charts of all patients receiving MET responses during an 8 month period were reviewed by a hospital based Quality Improvement Committee to establish if the clinical deterioration that prompted the MET response was associated with a medical error (defined as an adverse event that was preventable with the current state of medical knowledge). Medical errors were categorized as diagnostic, treatment, or preventive errors using a descriptive typology based on previous published reports. Results: Three hundred and sixty four consecutive MET responses underwent chart review and 114 (31.3%) were associated with medical errors: 77 (67.5%) were categorized as diagnostic errors, 68 (59.6%) as treatment errors, and 30 (26.3%) as prevention errors. Eighteen separate hospital care processes were identified and modified as a result of this review, 10 of which involved standardization. Conclusions: MET review may be used for surveillance to detect medical errors and to identify and modify processes of care that underlie those errors.