MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609363545 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000001164

Increased Mortality and Length of Stay Associated With Medical Emergency Team Review in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study*

2017· article· en· W2609363545 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brianna McKelvie, James Dayre McNally, Jason Chan, Franco Momoli, Christa Ramsay, Anna-Theresa Lobos

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyEmergency medicineRapid response teamCohortEmergency departmentPsychological interventionOdds ratioCohort studyConfoundingMortality ratePediatricsMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Rapid response systems using medical emergency teams reduce hospital wide cardiorespiratory arrest and mortality. While rapid response systems improve hospital-wide outcomes, children receiving medical emergency team review may still be at increased risk for morbidity and mortality. The study purpose was to compare the length of stay and mortality rate in children receiving a medical emergency team review with those of other hospitalized children. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary Pediatric Hospital, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada. PATIENTS: Cohort of 42,308 pediatric admissions to the general inpatient ward. INTERVENTIONS: Data over 7 years were obtained from a prospectively maintained rapid response systems database. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From the cohort, 995 (2.35%) of the admissions had one and 276 (0.65%) had multiple medical emergency team activations. When compared with patients without, children having one or multiple medical emergency team reviews had 13.34 (95% CI, 5.33-33.2) and 50.10 (95% CI, 19.86-126.39) times the odds of death, respectively. Patients experiencing a medical emergency team review stayed in hospital 1.59 times (95% CI, 1.39-1.82) longer, whereas those with multiple medical emergency team reviews stayed 2.44 times (95% CI, 1.85-3.20) longer. The associations remained significant after controlling for important confounders and excluding elective admissions from the analyses. Most repeat medical emergency team reviews occurred within a day of the initial review or involved patients with multiple comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that pediatric patients reviewed by the medical emergency team are at significantly higher risk of mortality and longer length of stay than general ward inpatients. As well, patients with multiple medical emergency team reviews were at particularly high risk compared with patients with one medical emergency team review. Patients who experience medical emergency team reviews should be recognized as a high-risk group, and future studies should consider how to decrease morbidity and mortality. Based on our findings, we suggest that these patients be followed for 24-48 hours after any medical emergency team activation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207