Medical emergency teams had become widespread in the nineties. The state of play right now is such that most people can neither clearly remember a time when there was no such service, or are too young to conceive of what an ICU job would look like without such a service.
Question 7 from the first paper of 2001 asked about the elements of a MET system and the expected improvements from such a system (implying that improvements were expected), whereas the later Question 12 from the first paper of 2005 asked the trainees to critically evaluate the system without pointing them to any specific conclusion they were supposed to reach.
Of all the possible resources, the most important reading for this topic is probably LITFL, followed by the Oh's Manual chapter (Ch.2, Welch and Subbe) and the 2004 article by Bright et al. Plus, a recent "JOINT POSITION STATEMENT" from the college has an all-capitals title, which makes it sound very urgent and important. We can expect to see more of this in the coming papers, and this is a good candidate for an SAQ.
This is the concept of "ICU without walls", which some uncivilized individuals have extrapolated to "ICU without balls" and "ICU without arms or legs", implying that the extension of critical care services will steal staff from the ICU and make us everybody's bitch, expected to clean up the mess of wealthy interventional specialties who neglect their ward work. These rude people clearly do not represent the opinions of the examiners, who seem to largely be in favour of the MET system (judging by their model answers). The Oh's chapter on this topic certainly seems pro-outreach in its tone, while trying to remain neutral.
Definition of a Rapid Response System (RRS)
- "A hospital wide structure providing a safety net for patients potentially becoming critically ill who have a mismatch between their clinical needs and the local resources to manage them". - 2016 joint position statement.
The purpose of these outreach teams
- Prevent ICU admissions
- Observation and review of patients discharged form the ICU
- Conserve critical care resources by optimising ward-level patient management
- Administer ICU-level intervention to patients before they require ICU
- Education of ward staff in critical care skills
Members of these teams
- Critical care nurses
- Nurse practitioners
- ICU medical staff
- MET team members
- Nursing Team Leader
- Administrative (bed management) staff to facilitate transfer
- The medical staff consist of:
- Medical team leader
- Medical staff skilled in airway management (eg. anaesthetics staff or ICU staff)
- Medical staff skilled in vascular access (eg. anaesthetics staff or ICU staff)
- Junior medical officer
Skills deployed by outreach team members
- Management and care of central lines
- Management of TPN
- Management of the patient with a tracheostomy and/or home ventilator
- Prevention of unnecessary ICU admissions
- Early management of deteriorating patients
- Improved level of care received by deteriorating patients
- Bedside education of ward staff in the management of critically ill patients
- Expansion of the role and importance of the ICU within the hospital
- Development of a supportive collaborative relationship with ward staff and hospital medical/surgical teams
- De-skilling of ward staff in management of critically ill patients
- Diversion of ICU resources into outreach teams
- Increased dependence on ICU support in the routine management of ward patients
- Increased dependence on ICU support in end-of-life decisionmaking
Evidence in support of critical care outreach teams
Evidence against critical care outreach teams
- There is a difficulty in performing a meta-analysis of the data because of heterogeneity in the implementation of critical care outreach services.
- At present, there is no strong evidence that critical care outreach services improve any outcomes whatsoever, including cardiac arrest, readmission, unplanned ICU admission, etc.
- Studies have not been consistent in demonstrating a mortality improvement. Negative findings (i.e. unchanged mortality) have been more consistent.
- Lack of evidence would normally result in the disinvestment of resources in an ineffective practice, but critical care outreach services -once entrenched - are difficult to uproot.
MET (Medical Emergency Team) services
- Deterioration of patient is usually heralded by steretypic changes in physiological parameters
- If this deterioration is detected and averted, the patient is less likely to require ICU admission
- MET systems aim to increase the rate of early detection, and focus critical care services to the aid of deteriorating patients
- MET service are coordinated by a system of call criteria based on physiological parameters which - with even minor deviations from normal values - can be sensitive in detecting a patient at risk of ICU admission or death.
- Call criteria are simple parameters to measure, already routinely collected
- Potentially, lifesaving treatments can be administered at the appropriate moment
- Early intervention to prevent cardiac arrest is likely to improve hospital mortality
- MET services deploy an ICU-level skill set in the ward, which should improve the quality of care for critically ill patients
- Prevention of ICU admission should be a cost-effective measure, working on the premise that ICU admission is more costly than MET team maintenance.
- End-of-life care quality should improve with the involvement of ICU staff
- Diverts ICU resources out of ICU
- Creates a dependence on ICU for the managemet of deteriorating patients
- Creates a dependence on ICU staff for end-of-life decisionmaking
- Decreases the critical care skills of ward staff
- Expensive in terms of MET maintenance, ward staff education programs, audit activities and ICU resource diversion
Evidence in support of the MET system
Evidence against the use of the MET system
- No effect on hospital mortality or incidence of cardiac arrest, at the cost of increased resource use (greatly increased MET callouts) according to the MERIT trial from 2005, as well as another more recent (2012) trial by Howell et al.
- Poor study methodology had resulted in the exclusion of all but two studies from a 2007 Cochrane review. The two remaining studies disagreed as to whether there was any mortality improvement. The Cochrane authors were forced to conclude that no recommendations can be made on the basis of such poor quality evidence.
- Thus far, no strong evidence exists to support the use of MET teams as a means of decreasing in-hospital mortality.