Clinical concern and the deteriorating patient: a review of rapid response 2018–20

Abstract

Objective To investigate demographics, clinical patterns and outcomes of rapid response reviews in hospital, reviewing indications for and outcomes of rapid response reviews initiated for clinical concern and to understand the role of clinical concern in identifying the deteriorating patient and at-risk patient populations. Method This was a retrospective analysis of General Medical inpatients at Alfred Hospital from 1 January 2018 to 31 July 2020. Data extraction from electronic medical records identified patients who had a rapid response review during admission. Demographic and clinical data, investigations and clinical outcomes from rapid response reviews were investigated. Comparisons were performed using χ2 or Fisher’s exact test where appropriate. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for factors associated with rapid response reviews for clinical concern and clinical outcomes. Results There were 10 797 admissions of 7409 individual patients. There were 2359 rapid response reviews during the study period, occurring in 13% of admissions. Patients were majority female (50.4%), and the median age was 79 ± 17.6 years. Rapid response reviews were for cardiovascular (46.8%), respiratory (25.3%) and neurological (14.3%) indications. A total of 11% of rapid response reviews (n = 258) were for clinical concern. Inpatient falls accounted for a significant proportion of rapid response reviews for clinical concern. Reviews were more common in older patients, those admitted after-hours, and patients with disabilities. The latter group were more likely to have rapid response reviews for clinical concern. Rapid response reviews initiated for clinical concern were more likely than those initiated for standard criteria to change patients’ clinical status, particularly the withdrawal of active management. Conclusions Rapid response reviews for clinical concern are important triggers to identify clinical deterioration in vulnerable patients. Reviews were initiated for clinical concern were more likely than those initiated for standard criteria to result in a change in patients’ resuscitation status and care trajectory. Clinician concern, even when prompting review for parameters outside of standard clinical review criteria, remains an important factor in recognising the deteriorating patient.