Medical emergency teams (MET), also known as rapid response teams, are used to improve the identification and management of patients demonstrating signs of rapid deterioration. This study found that modifying activation criteria to trigger METs at more extreme levels of clinical deterioration were not associated with negative patient safety outcomes.

Rapid response systems have been widely accepted as a method to improve outcomes of hospitalized patients demonstrating signs of rapid deterioration. This commentary provides an overview of rapid response systems, including factors that influence their effectiveness in enhancing safety, resources and educational programs required to support implementation, and associated improvements in mortality rates following deployment.

This study group created a standardized running sheet for documenting medical emergency team (MET) events at their medical center. About half of ward nurses felt that this tool improved patient handoffs to the arriving METs.

In this study, conducted at seven hospitals in three countries, nearly one-third of patients seen by a rapid response team ultimately had limitations placed on their care (such as do-not-resuscitate orders). This finding indicates a need for improved advanced care planning.

Delays in clinical deterioration recognition and failures to rescue lead to serious adverse events. Rapid response systems (RRS) have been implemented with the aim of improving the identification and management of clinically worsening hospital ward patients. Although early studies reviewing RRS showed improvements in clinical outcomes, subsequent results have not shown consistent benefit. This review describes RRS, including controversies surrounding them, potential benefits and limitations, as well as strategies to implement them successfully. An AHRQ WebM&M perspective discusses lessons from early experiences with RRS.

Atrial fibrillation, a common cardiac arrhythmia, triggered a significant proportion of rapid response system activations at an Australian hospital, and was associated with worsened clinical outcomes.

Nurses in this study valued medical emergency team (MET) systems, but they also pointed out barriers to activation, including fear of criticism and adherence to the more traditional model of contacting the responsible physician first. Fear of criticism was a finding not reported in a past study of nursing attitudes about MET systems.

This study discovered that incomplete nursing documentation postoperatively was associated with night shifts and patients not receiving epidural or patient-controlled analgesia. Incomplete medical documentation was noted more commonly on the weekends.

This study discovered that patients receiving a medical emergency team (MET) assessment tended to be elderly and had a mortality rate exceeding 35%, with the highest rates in those where the MET response was delayed.

This case report describes an Australian hospital's rapid response system and recounts how the medical emergency team quickly responded to a patient with anaphylactic shock.

Medical emergency teams (METs) are a widely implemented safety intervention, but controversy remains regarding their effectiveness. This study took place in Australia and New Zealand, where a prior randomized trial found no overall effect of METs on clinical outcomes. While most hospitals have implemented an MET, death rates from cardiac arrest appeared to decrease over the study period at all hospitals, regardless of whether an MET was in place. Despite the equivocal results of larger studies, implementation and development of METs will likely continue due to the improvement in clinical outcomes found in single-center studies and the positive opinion of nurses regarding the teams.

Delayed activation of the medical emergency team was associated with worsened patient outcomes, especially in patients with acute mental status changes.

The authors present a case study of the use of a medical emergency team (MET) to manage a difficult airway in an elderly patient and the subsequent review of the incident by the clinical governance board.

This report from an Australian hospital with a well-developed medical emergency team (MET) describes the MET's intervention on two separate occasions for a patient with a hemorrhagic complication after a routine liver biopsy. The MET was initially called by the bedside nurse owing to abnormal vital signs, and subsequently by the surgical house officer because she was concerned about the patient. In this case, the MET conducted the initial resuscitation of the patient and was involved in coordinating care with multiple consulting physicians.

The authors present a case study to illustrate the value of medical emergency teams in caring for acutely unwell patients.