An exploration of medical emergency team intervention at the end of life for people with advanced cancer

Patient outcomes following medical emergency team review on general wards: Development of predictive models

AIM

To develop and internally validate risk prediction models for subsequent clinical deterioration, unplanned ICU admission and death among ward patients following medical emergency team (MET) review.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study of 1500 patients who remained on a general ward following MET review at an Australian quaternary hospital.

METHOD

Logistic regression was used to model (1) subsequent MET review within 48 h, (2) unplanned ICU admission within 48 h and (3) hospital mortality. Models included demographic, clinical and illness severity variables. Model performance was evaluated using discrimination and calibration with optimism-corrected bootstrapped estimates. Findings are reported using the TRIPOD guideline for multivariable prediction models for prognosis or diagnosis. There was no patient or public involvement in the development and conduct of this study.

RESULTS

Within 48 h of index MET review, 8.3% (n = 125) of patients had a subsequent MET review, 7.2% (n = 108) had an unplanned ICU admission and in-hospital mortality was 16% (n = 240). From clinically preselected predictors, models retained age, sex, comorbidity, resuscitation limitation, acuity-dependency profile, MET activation triggers and whether the patient was within 24 h of hospital admission, ICU discharge or surgery. Models for subsequent MET review, unplanned ICU admission, and death had adequate accuracy in development and bootstrapped validation samples.

CONCLUSION

Patients requiring MET review demonstrate complex clinical characteristics and the majority remain on the ward after review for deterioration. A risk score could be used to identify patients at risk of poor outcomes after MET review and support general ward clinical decision-making.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Our risk calculator estimates risk for patient outcomes following MET review using clinical data available at the bedside. Future validation and implementation could support evidence-informed team communication and patient placement decisions.

A Delphi study to obtain consensus on medical emergency team (MET) stand-down decision making

AIM

A medical emergency team (MET) stand-down decision is the decision to end a MET response and hand responsibility for the patient back to ward staff for ongoing management. Little research has explored this decision. This study aimed to obtain expert consensus on the essential elements required to make optimal MET call stand-down decisions and the communication required before MET departure.

DESIGN

A Delphi design was utilised.

METHODS

An expert panel of 10 members were recruited based on their expert knowledge and recent clinical MET responder experience in acute hospital settings. Participants were emailed a consent form and an electronic interactive PDF for each survey. Two rounds were conducted with no attrition between rounds. The CREDES guidance on conducting and reporting Delphi studies was used to report this study.

RESULTS

Consensus by an expert panel of 10 MET responders generated essential elements of MET stand-down decisions. Essential elements comprised of two steps: (1) the stand-down decision that was influenced by both the patient situation and the ward/organisational context; and (2) the communication required before actioning stand-down. Communication after the decision required both verbal discussions and written documentation to hand over patient responsibility. Specific patient information, a management plan and an escalation plan were considered essential.

CONCLUSION

The Delphi surveys reached consensus on the actions and communication required to stand down a MET call. Passing responsibility back to ward staff after a MET call requires both patient and ward safety assessments, and a clearly articulated patient plan for ward staff. Observation of MET call stand-down decision-making is required to validate the essential elements.

IMPLICATION FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT/OR PATIENT CARE

In specifying the essential elements, this study offers clinical and MET staff a process to support the handing over of clinical responsibility from the MET to the ward staff, and clarification of management plans in order to reduce repeat MET calls and improve patient outcomes.

IMPACT

Minimal research has been focussed on the decision to hand responsibility back to ward staff so the MET may leave the ward with safety plan in place. This study provided expert consensus to optimise MET stand-down decision-making and the ultimate decision to end a MET call. Communication of agreed patient treatment and escalation plans is recommended before leaving the ward. This study can be used as a checklist for MET responder staff making these decisions and ward staff responsible for post-MET call care. The aim being to reduce the likelihood of potentially preventable repeat deterioration in the MET patient population.

REPORTING METHOD

The CREDES guidance on conducting and reporting Delphi studies.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

None.

Prevalence and predictors of direct discharge home following hospitalization of patients with serious adverse events managed by the rapid response system in Japan: a multicenter, retrospective, observational study

AIM

The rapid response system (RRS) is an in-hospital medical safety system. To date, not much is known about patient disposition after RRS activation, especially discharge home. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of patients with adverse events who required RRS activation.

METHODS

Retrospective data from the In-Hospital Emergency Registry in Japan collected from April 2016 to November 2020 were eligible for our analysis. We divided patients into Home Discharge, Transfer, and Death groups. The primary outcome was the prevalence of direct discharge home, and independently associated factors were determined using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

We enrolled 2,043 patients who met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of discharge home was 45.7%; 934 patients were included in the Home Discharge group. Age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-0.97), malignancy (AOR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99), oxygen administration before RRS (AOR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.66), cerebral performance category score on admission (AOR 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.56), do not attempt resuscitation order before RRS (AOR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.10-0.29), RRS call for respiratory failure (AOR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.72), RRS call for stroke (AOR 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.37), and intubation (AOR 0.20; 95% CI, 0.12-0.34) were independently negative, and RRS call for anaphylaxis (AOR 15.3; 95% CI, 2.72-86.3) was positively associated with discharge home.

CONCLUSION

Less than half of the in-hospital patients under RRS activation could discharge home. Patients' conditions before RRS activation, disorders requiring RRS activation, and intubation were factors that affected direct discharge home.

The experience of caring for patients at the end-of-life stage in non-palliative care settings: a qualitative study

Background

More patients are dying in non-palliative care settings than in palliative care settings. How health care providers care for adult patients at the end-of-life stage in non-palliative care settings has not been adequately explored. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of health care providers in caring for patients at the end-of-life stage in non-palliative care settings.

Methods

This is a qualitative study. Twenty-six health care providers from eight health care institutions which are based in Shanghai were interviewed individually between August 2016 and February 2017. Three levels of health care, i.e., acute care, sub-acute care, or primary care, was provided in the health care institutions. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Three themes emerged from the interviews: (i) Definition of the end-of-life stage: This is mainly defined based on a change in treatment. (ii) Health care at the end-of-life stage: Most patients spent their last weeks in tertiary/secondary hospitals, transferring from one location to another and receiving disease- and symptom-focused treatment. Family-dominated decision making was common when discussing treatment options. Nurses instinctively provided extra care attention to patients, but nursing care is still task-oriented. (iii) Challenges, difficulties, and the future. From the interviews, it was found that pressure from families was the main challenge faced by health care providers. Three urgent tasks before the end-of-life care can become widely available in the future were identified from the interviews, including educating the public on death, extending government support, and creating better health care environment.

Conclusion

The end-of-life care system of the future should involve health care institutions at all levels, with established mechanisms of collaboration between institutions. Care should be delivered to patients with various life-threatening diseases in both palliative and non-palliative care settings. But first, it is necessary to address the obstacles to the development of end-of-life care, which involve health care providers, patients and their families, and the health care system as a whole.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-018-0372-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.