Rapid Response Teams: A Systematic Review of Patient Outcomes and Hospital Narratives

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/149499
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Rapid Response Teams: A Systematic Review of Patient Outcomes and Hospital Narratives
Abstract:
Rapid Response Teams: A Systematic Review of Patient Outcomes and Hospital Narratives
Conference Sponsor:Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Year:2009
Author:Stolldorf, Deonni P., RN, MCur, APRN-BC
P.I. Institution Name:University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Title:Graduate student
[Scientific Session Presentation] Rapid response teams (RRTs) were birthed in Australia in 1990 and were introduced to the United States health care system in December of 2004 when the Institute for Healthcare Improvement launched the ?100 000 Lives? Campaign.  The goal of the Campaign was to save 100 000 lives in 18 months by decreasing patient mortality and morbidity through six interventions.  One of six initiatives was the implementation of Rapid Response Teams.  RRTs are a group of experts, usually a critical care nurse, physician and respiratory therapist, who is called to the bedside of a potentially deteriorating patient on an acute care unit.  It is estimated that 3 103 hospitals have joined the campaign and by June, 2006, the IHI reported that 122,300 lives have been saved.  RRTs have now also been adopted in the United Kingdom and other European nations. Research studies conducted on these teams have yielded different results than what was reported by the IHI and the effectiveness of RRTs as a strategy to decrease patient mortality remains questionable.  Therefore, a systematic literature review was conducted to bring clarity to this issue. The aim of the systematic review was to examine (1) the research literature to explore relationships between patient outcomes and hospital characteristics, RRT staffing structure, training of hospital staff and RRT members, RRT calling criteria, and subsequent patient outcomes, and (2) hospital narratives of RRT implementation strategies and reported outcomes and the perceived benefits of RRTs by these organizations.  Donabedian?s model of structure, process, and outcomes was used as the conceptual framework for the study.  Cooper?s (1982) guidelines on integrative research reviews were used to guide the review process.  Inconsistencies on the conceptualization, implementation of RRTs, and patient outcomes were identified.   Perceived benefits of RRTs observed include increased staff satisfaction and improved communication between care providers.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Sigma Theta Tau International

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleRapid Response Teams: A Systematic Review of Patient Outcomes and Hospital Narrativesen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/149499-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Rapid Response Teams: A Systematic Review of Patient Outcomes and Hospital Narratives</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Sigma Theta Tau International</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2009</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Stolldorf, Deonni P., RN, MCur, APRN-BC</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Graduate student</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">deonniv@unc.edu</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">[Scientific Session Presentation] Rapid response teams (RRTs) were birthed in Australia in 1990 and were introduced to the United States health care system in December of 2004 when the Institute for Healthcare Improvement launched the ?100 000 Lives? Campaign.&nbsp; The goal of the Campaign was to save 100 000 lives in 18 months by decreasing patient mortality and morbidity through six interventions.&nbsp; One of six initiatives was the implementation of Rapid Response Teams.&nbsp; RRTs are a group of experts, usually a critical care nurse, physician and respiratory therapist, who is called to the bedside of a potentially deteriorating patient on an acute care unit.&nbsp; It is estimated that 3 103 hospitals have joined the campaign and by June, 2006, the IHI reported that 122,300 lives have been saved.&nbsp; RRTs have now also been adopted in the United Kingdom and other European nations. Research studies conducted on these teams have yielded different results than what was reported by the IHI and the effectiveness of RRTs as a strategy to decrease patient mortality remains questionable.&nbsp; Therefore, a systematic literature review was conducted to bring clarity to this issue. The aim of the systematic review was to examine (1) the research literature to explore relationships between patient outcomes and hospital characteristics, RRT staffing structure, training of hospital staff and RRT members, RRT calling criteria, and subsequent patient outcomes, and (2) hospital narratives of RRT implementation strategies and reported outcomes and the perceived benefits of RRTs by these organizations.&nbsp; Donabedian?s model of structure, process, and outcomes was used as the conceptual framework for the study.&nbsp; Cooper?s (1982) guidelines on integrative research reviews were used to guide the review process.&nbsp; Inconsistencies on the conceptualization, implementation of RRTs, and patient outcomes were identified.&nbsp;&nbsp; Perceived benefits of RRTs observed include increased staff satisfaction and improved communication between care providers.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T10:03:38Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T10:03:38Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipSigma Theta Tau Internationalen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.