Bench-to-bedside review: The MET syndrome - the challenges of researching and adopting medical emergency teams

Augustine Tee, Paolo Calzavacca, Elisa Licari, Donna Goldsmith, Rinaldo Bellomo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

58 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Studies of hospital performance highlight the problem of failure to rescue in acutely ill patients. This is a deficiency strongly associated with serious adverse events, cardiac arrest, or death. Rapid response systems (RRSs) and their efferent arm, the medical emergency team (MET), provide early specialist critical care to patients affected by the MET syndrome : unequivocal physiological instability or significant hospital staff concern for patients in a non-critical care environment. This intervention aims to prevent serious adverse events, cardiac arrests, and unexpected deaths. Though clinically logical and relatively simple, its adoption poses major challenges. Furthermore, research about the effectiveness of RRS is difficult to conduct. Skeptics argue that inadequate evidence exists to support its widespread application. Indeed, supportive evidence is based on before-and-after studies, observational investigations, and inductive reasoning. However, implementing a complex intervention like RRS poses enormous logistic, political, cultural, and financial challenges. In addition, double-blinded randomised controlled trials of RRS are simply not possible. Instead, as in the case of cardiac arrest and trauma teams, change in practice may be slow and progressive, even in the absence of level I evidence. It appears likely that the accumulation of evidence from different settings and situations, though methodologically imperfect, will increase the rationale and logic of RRS. A conclusive randomised controlled trial is unlikely to occur.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages6
JournalCritical Care
Volume12
Issue number1 (Art. No.: 205)
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008
Externally publishedYes

Cite this

@article{e24fb8f8389748b1afe45e605a1c593d,
title = "Bench-to-bedside review: The MET syndrome - the challenges of researching and adopting medical emergency teams",
abstract = "Studies of hospital performance highlight the problem of failure to rescue in acutely ill patients. This is a deficiency strongly associated with serious adverse events, cardiac arrest, or death. Rapid response systems (RRSs) and their efferent arm, the medical emergency team (MET), provide early specialist critical care to patients affected by the MET syndrome : unequivocal physiological instability or significant hospital staff concern for patients in a non-critical care environment. This intervention aims to prevent serious adverse events, cardiac arrests, and unexpected deaths. Though clinically logical and relatively simple, its adoption poses major challenges. Furthermore, research about the effectiveness of RRS is difficult to conduct. Skeptics argue that inadequate evidence exists to support its widespread application. Indeed, supportive evidence is based on before-and-after studies, observational investigations, and inductive reasoning. However, implementing a complex intervention like RRS poses enormous logistic, political, cultural, and financial challenges. In addition, double-blinded randomised controlled trials of RRS are simply not possible. Instead, as in the case of cardiac arrest and trauma teams, change in practice may be slow and progressive, even in the absence of level I evidence. It appears likely that the accumulation of evidence from different settings and situations, though methodologically imperfect, will increase the rationale and logic of RRS. A conclusive randomised controlled trial is unlikely to occur.",
author = "Augustine Tee and Paolo Calzavacca and Elisa Licari and Donna Goldsmith and Rinaldo Bellomo",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1186/cc6199",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
journal = "Critical Care",
issn = "1364-8535",
number = "1 (Art. No.: 205)",

}

Bench-to-bedside review: The MET syndrome - the challenges of researching and adopting medical emergency teams. / Tee, Augustine; Calzavacca, Paolo; Licari, Elisa; Goldsmith, Donna; Bellomo, Rinaldo.

In: Critical Care, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Art. No.: 205), 2008.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bench-to-bedside review: The MET syndrome - the challenges of researching and adopting medical emergency teams

AU - Tee, Augustine

AU - Calzavacca, Paolo

AU - Licari, Elisa

AU - Goldsmith, Donna

AU - Bellomo, Rinaldo

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Studies of hospital performance highlight the problem of failure to rescue in acutely ill patients. This is a deficiency strongly associated with serious adverse events, cardiac arrest, or death. Rapid response systems (RRSs) and their efferent arm, the medical emergency team (MET), provide early specialist critical care to patients affected by the MET syndrome : unequivocal physiological instability or significant hospital staff concern for patients in a non-critical care environment. This intervention aims to prevent serious adverse events, cardiac arrests, and unexpected deaths. Though clinically logical and relatively simple, its adoption poses major challenges. Furthermore, research about the effectiveness of RRS is difficult to conduct. Skeptics argue that inadequate evidence exists to support its widespread application. Indeed, supportive evidence is based on before-and-after studies, observational investigations, and inductive reasoning. However, implementing a complex intervention like RRS poses enormous logistic, political, cultural, and financial challenges. In addition, double-blinded randomised controlled trials of RRS are simply not possible. Instead, as in the case of cardiac arrest and trauma teams, change in practice may be slow and progressive, even in the absence of level I evidence. It appears likely that the accumulation of evidence from different settings and situations, though methodologically imperfect, will increase the rationale and logic of RRS. A conclusive randomised controlled trial is unlikely to occur.

AB - Studies of hospital performance highlight the problem of failure to rescue in acutely ill patients. This is a deficiency strongly associated with serious adverse events, cardiac arrest, or death. Rapid response systems (RRSs) and their efferent arm, the medical emergency team (MET), provide early specialist critical care to patients affected by the MET syndrome : unequivocal physiological instability or significant hospital staff concern for patients in a non-critical care environment. This intervention aims to prevent serious adverse events, cardiac arrests, and unexpected deaths. Though clinically logical and relatively simple, its adoption poses major challenges. Furthermore, research about the effectiveness of RRS is difficult to conduct. Skeptics argue that inadequate evidence exists to support its widespread application. Indeed, supportive evidence is based on before-and-after studies, observational investigations, and inductive reasoning. However, implementing a complex intervention like RRS poses enormous logistic, political, cultural, and financial challenges. In addition, double-blinded randomised controlled trials of RRS are simply not possible. Instead, as in the case of cardiac arrest and trauma teams, change in practice may be slow and progressive, even in the absence of level I evidence. It appears likely that the accumulation of evidence from different settings and situations, though methodologically imperfect, will increase the rationale and logic of RRS. A conclusive randomised controlled trial is unlikely to occur.

UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374625/pdf/cc6199.pdf

U2 - 10.1186/cc6199

DO - 10.1186/cc6199

M3 - Article

VL - 12

JO - Critical Care

JF - Critical Care

SN - 1364-8535

IS - 1 (Art. No.: 205)

ER -