March - 2013
| Previous Next | Showing Journal 4 of 13 |
ICU Admittance by a Rapid Response Team Versus Conventional Admittance, Characteristics, and OutcomeGabriella Jäderling, Max Bell, Claes-Roland Martling, Anders Ekbom, Matteo Bottai, David Konrad Crit Care Med, 2013, 41:725–731 This page is only available to Crit-IQ subscribers. To view the rest of this review and gain access to our vast array of critical care teaching tools including podcasts, vodcasts, modules, exam preparation tools, teaching aids and much more, login here, or Become a Member to register |
March |
Previous Comments
| These appear to be quite different groups of patients. The physician request patients are less sick and occur in median 1.5 days, suggests they are failing to thrive from treatment of their presenting illness. The RRT group, median 6 days, more likely to have a nosocomial or iatrogenic problem. They are also more elderly, suggesting they have taken longer to recover from their presenting illness. Interestinlgy there is no difference in outcome, when adjusted for age and co-morbidities. Doesn't this mean that the early referral patients had a disease that was recognised to be at high risk and they were failing to thrive with initial treatment, whereas the RRT patients became high risk simply due to LOS in hospital?? I am not sure that this tells us about value of RRT over a good clinician, or that the good clinicians stop seeing their patients after a few days?? Or that the longer you languish in a hospital bed the more likely you are to get sick, and thankfully the RRT picks this up because the clinicians have lost interest/ideas. | |
| myrenek-17 Mar, 2013 11:40:36 PM | |
Comment
This prospective observational study compares the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted from general wards to ICU through a rapid response team (RRT) (n=355) vs conventional (n=349) referral over a 2-year period. This excluded patients from ED, direct admits from theatre,...