Background How nontechnical factors such as inadequate role definition and overcrowding affect outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is unknown. Using a bundled intervention, we sought to improve providers' role definitions and decrease overcrowding during IHCA events. Objectives To determine if a bundled intervention consisting of a nurse/physician leadership dyad, visual cues for provider roles, and a "role check" would lead to reductions in crowding and improve perceptions of communication and team leadership. Methods Baseline data on the number and type of IHCA providers were collected. Providers were asked to complete a postevent survey rating communication and leadership. A bundled intervention was then introduced. Data were then obtained for the subsequent IHCA events. Results Twenty ICHA events were captured before and 34 after the intervention. The number of physicians present at pulse checks 2 (median [interquartile range]: 6 [5-8] before vs 5 [3-6] after, P = .02) and 3 (7 [5-9] vs 4 [4-5], P = .004) decreased significantly after the intervention. The overall number of providers at the third pulse check (18 [14-22] before vs 14 [12-16] after, P = .04) also decreased after the intervention. On a 10-point Likert scale, ratings of communication (8 [7-8]) and physician leadership (8 [7-9]) did not differ significantly from before to after the intervention. Both the physician leads (90%) and patients' primary nurses (97%) were able to identify clear nurse leaders. Conclusion A bundled intervention targeted at improving IHCA response led to a decrease in overcrowding at ICHA events without substantial changes in the perceptions of communication or physician leadership.
OBJECTIVES: Physiological decompensation of hospitalized patients is common and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Research surrounding patient decompensation has been hampered by the absence of a robust definition of decompensation and lack of standardized clinical criteria with which to identify patients who have decompensated. We aimed to: 1) develop a consensus definition of physiological decompensation and 2) to develop clinical criteria to identify patients who have decompensated. DESIGN: We utilized a three-phase, modified electronic Delphi (eDelphi) process, followed by a discussion round to generate consensus on the definition of physiological decompensation and on criteria to identify decompensation. We then validated the criteria using a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. SETTING: Quaternary academic medical center. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania who had triggered a rapid response team (RRT) response between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-nine experts participated in the eDelphi. Participation was high across the three survey rounds (first round: 93%, second round: 94%, and third round: 98%). The expert panel arrived at a consensus definition of physiological decompensation, “An acute worsening of a patient’s clinical status that poses a substantial increase to an individual’s short-term risk of death or serious harm.” Consensus was also reached on criteria for physiological decompensation. Invasive mechanical ventilation, severe hypoxemia, and use of vasopressor or inotrope medication were bundled as criteria for our novel decompensation metric: the adult inpatient decompensation event (AIDE). Patients who met greater than one AIDE criteria within 24 hours of an RRT call had increased adjusted odds of 7-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.1 [95% CI, 2.5–6.7]) and intensive care unit transfer (aOR, 20.6 [95% CI, 14.2–30.0]). CONCLUSIONS: Through the eDelphi process, we have reached a consensus definition of physiological decompensation and proposed clinical criteria with which to identify patients who have decompensated using data easily available from the electronic medical record, the AIDE criteria.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.