MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414579090 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-102016

Rapid response teams and recommended ward-based management of acute deterioration: a single-centre retrospective cohort study in an inner-city London (UK) teaching hospital

2025· article· en· W4414579090 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Hadfield, Marc Zentar, Mark McPhail, E. Helme, R. Broderick, Francesca Logan, Robert Loveridge, Emma Madine, Imogen Vining, Julia Wendon, Victoria Metaxa, Daniel Hadfield

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersKing's College London
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyIncidence (geometry)Rapid response teamTeaching hospitalOddsQuality managementOdds ratioEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES : To describe the associations between Rapid Response Team (RRT) patient review and other predefined clinical management actions, with risk of in-hospital cardiac arrest and in-hospital mortality in the first unplanned admission (UPA) to the adult intensive care unit (ICU) from the ward environment for each patient.To describe a novel RRT assessment tool for ward-based care for patients who were deteriorating. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A large multispecialty, tertiary referral and teaching hospital in England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 3175 consecutive adult ICU UPAs from hospital wards over a 6-year period (2014-2019). OUTCOME MEASURES: Ward-based management of deterioration prior to ICU admission was assessed by the RRT, using a scored checklist-the UPA score. Admissions were compared in two groups according to their exposure to an RRT review in the 72 hours before ICU admission. Associations with in-hospital cardiac arrest within 24 hours before ICU admission and all-cause in-hospital mortality were estimated, using unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95%CI. RESULTS: RRT review occurred in 1413 (44.5%) admissions and was associated with reduced odds of in-hospital cardiac arrest (aOR 0.51; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.78; p<0.001), but similar odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; p=0.65). The median (IQR) UPA score was 1 (0 to 2), and each point increase was associated with increased odds of in-hospital cardiac arrest (aOR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.23; p<0.001) and in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.10; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; p<0.001). Among individual UPA score items, Nursing Escalation Failure, Blood Gas Omission and Laboratory Blood Omission were associated with increased odds of in-hospital cardiac arrest, whereas Delayed Vital Signs and Failure to Recognise Deterioration were associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An RRT review in the 72 hours prior to ICU admission was associated with reduced odds of in-hospital cardiac arrest but did not impact in-hospital mortality. Higher UPA scores were associated with increased incidence of both in-hospital cardiac arrest and in-hospital mortality. In addition, this study describes a novel and adaptable RRT scoring tool (the UPA score) for safety monitoring and quality improvement.

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)0.004
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→