clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00365430.

BackgroundRapid response systems (RRSs) are considered an important tool for improving patient safety. We studied the effect of an RRS on the incidence of cardiac arrests and unexpected deaths.MethodsRetrospective before- after study in a university medical centre. We included 1376 surgical patients before (period 1) and 2410 patients after introduction of the RRS (period 2). Outcome measures were corrected for the baseline covariates age, gender and ASA.ResultsThe number of patients who experienced a cardiac arrest and/or who died unexpectedly decreased non significantly from 0.50% (7/1376) in period 1 to 0.25% (6/2410) in period 2 (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, CI 0.14-1.30). The individual number of cardiac arrests decreased non-significantly from 0.29% (4/1367) to 0.12% (3/2410) (OR 0.38, CI 0.09-1.73) and the number of unexpected deaths decreased non-significantly from 0.36% (5/1376) to 0.17% (4/2410) (OR 0.42, CI 0.11-1.59). In contrast, the number of unplanned ICU admissions increased from 2.47% (34/1376) in period 1 to 4.15% (100/2400) in period 2 (OR 1.66, CI 1.07-2.55). Median APACHE ll score at unplanned ICU admissions was 16 in period 1 versus 16 in period 2 (NS). Adherence to RRS procedures. Observed abnormal early warning scores ≤72 h preceding a cardiac arrest, unexpected death or an unplanned ICU admission increased from 65% (24/37 events) in period 1 to 91% (91/101 events) in period 2 (p < 0.001). Related ward physician interventions increased from 38% (9/24 events) to 89% (81/91 events) (p < 0.001). In period 2, ward physicians activated the medical emergency team in 65% of the events (59/91), although in 16% (15/91 events) activation was delayed for one or two days. The overall medical emergency team dose was 56/1000 admissions.ConclusionsIntroduction of an RRS resulted in a 50% reduction in cardiac arrest rates and/or unexpected death. However, this decrease was not statistically significant partly due to the low base-line incidence. Moreover, delayed activation due to the two-tiered medical emergency team activation procedure and suboptimal adherence of the ward staff to the RRS procedures may have further abated the positive results.

A B S T R A C TBackground: Patients in hospitals and nursing homes are at risk for the development of often preventable adverse events. Guidelines for the prevention of many types of adverse events are available, however compliance with these guidelines appears to be lacking. As a result many patients do not receive appropriate care. We developed a patient safety program that allows organisations to implement multiple guidelines simultaneously and therefore facilitates guideline use to improve patient safety. This program was developed for three frequently occurring nursing care related adverse events: pressure ulcers, urinary tract infections and falls. For the implementation of this program we developed educational activities for nurses as a main implementation strategy. Objectives: The aim of this study is to describe the effect of interactive and tailored education on the knowledge levels of nurses. Design: A cluster randomised trial was conducted between September 2006 and July 2008. Settings: Ten hospital wards and ten nursing home wards participated in this study. Prior to baseline, randomisation of the wards to an intervention or control group was stratified for centre and type of ward. Participants: All nurses from participating wards. Methods: A knowledge test measured nurses' knowledge on the prevention of pressure ulcers, urinary tract infections and falls, during baseline en follow-up. The results were analysed for hospitals and nursing homes separately. Results: After correction for baseline, the mean difference between the intervention and the control group on hospital nurses' knowledge on the prevention of the three adverse events was 0.19 points on a zero to ten scale (95% CI: À0.03 to 0.42), in favour of the intervention group. There was a statistically significant effect on knowledge of pressure ulcers, with an improved mean mark of 0.45 points (95% CI: 0.10-0.81). For the other two topics there was no statistically significant effect. Nursing home nurses' knowledge did neither improve (0 points, CI: À0.35 to 0.35) overall, nor for the separate subjects.

Though the SAFE OR SORRY? programme effectively reduced the number of adverse events, an increase in preventive care given to patients at risk was not demonstrated. These results seem to emphasise the difficulties in measuring the compliance to guidelines. More research is needed to explore the possibilities for measuring the implementation of multiple guidelines using process indicators.