Quels sont le fonctionnement, les caractéristiques, les effets et les modalités d’implantation des équipes d’intervention rapide ? Une revue de la littérature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction : Hospitalized patients are at risk of unrecognized clinical deterioration that may lead to adverse events.Context : Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) exist around the world as a strategy to improve patient safety.Objective : To explore how RRTs work, their characteristics, impacts, and methods of implementation.Design : Literature review.Method : Consultation of the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PUBMED, COCHRANE library, SCOPUS, and PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses. Keywords : “health care team” and “rapid response team”.Results : 121 articles were included. The collected data were divided into five categories : 1) composition and operation of RRTs, 2) benefits and limitations of RRTs, 3) perceptions of RRTs by health care teams, organizations, and patients, 4) implementation strategies, and 5) facilitators and barriers to implementation.Discussion : Although there are many articles related to RRTs, it appears that : 1) few studies analyze the difference in outcomes in hospitalized patients related to the composition of RRTs, 2) few studies describe how RRTs should work, 3) more studies are needed on the impacts of RRTs on hospitalized patients, 4) organizations’ and patients’ perceptions of RRTs are not well studied, and 5) more studies are needed on the best way to implement an RRT.Conclusion : The results show that there is a lack of studies on the difference in outcomes in hospitalized patients related to the composition of RRTs, on how RRTs should work, on the impacts of RRTs on hospitalized patients, on organizations’ and patients’ perceptions of RRTs, and on the factors that influence the success or failure of the implementation of an RRT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".