↓ Skip to main content

Performance of the efferent limb of a rapid response system: an observational study of medical emergency team calls

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Performance of the efferent limb of a rapid response system: an observational study of medical emergency team calls
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13049-015-0153-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emilie M. Sørensen, John Asger Petersen

Abstract

To determine the distribution of outcomes following a medical emergency team (MET) call using a modified version of the multidisciplinary audit and evaluation of outcomes of rapid response (MAELOR) tool, and to evaluate its usefulness in monitoring the performance of the efferent limb of the rapid response system (RRS) at our institution. An observational study of prospectively collected data including all MET calls at our institution during the 36 weeks study period (23 December 2013 - 31 august 2014). Outcomes of MET calls were registered 24 h after the call occurred and categorized according to the MAELOR tool. Fifty-five of a total of 308 MET calls were excluded due to prior limitations in treatment. Of the remaining cases 66 % had positive outcomes. Thirty two percent of the calls resulted in transfer to the ICU, of these 73 % occurred within 4 h. Patients remained on the ward in 53 % of the cases, and 56 % of these were no longer triggering at follow up. Nine patients had died at follow-up, three without a DNAR order. Three patients were lost to follow-up, two patients were discharged from the hospital and 25 remained alive on the ward with a DNAR as a consequence of the MET call. ICU transfer was implemented rapidly in most cases once the decision was made, but a disturbingly large number of patients, who remained on the ward were still triggering at 24 h follow-up. We found the MAELOR-tool useful to evaluate RRS efferent limb performance.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Other 7 15%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 15 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,291,881
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1,212
of 1,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,664
of 272,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#28
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,257 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.