↓ Skip to main content

Medical Emergency Team: How do we play when we stay? Characterization of MET actions at the scene

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Medical Emergency Team: How do we play when we stay? Characterization of MET actions at the scene
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0222-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raquel Silva, Manuel Saraiva, Teresa Cardoso, Irene C. Aragão

Abstract

The creation, implementation and effectiveness of a medical emergency team (MET) in every hospital is encourage and supported by international bodies of quality certification. Issues such as what is the best composition of the team or the interventions performed by the MET at the scene and the immediate outcomes of the patients after MET intervention have not yet been sufficiently explored. The purpose of the study is to characterize MET actions at the scene and the immediate patient outcome. Retrospective cohort study, at a tertiary care, university-affiliated, 600-bed hospital, in the north of Portugal, over two years. There were 511 MET activations: 389 (76 %) were for inpatients. MET activation rate was 8.6/1,000 inpatients. The main criteria for activation were airway threatening in 143 (36.8 %), concern of medical staff in 121 (31.1 %) and decrease in GCS > 2 in 98 (25.2 %) patients; MET calls for cardiac arrest occurred in 68 patients (17.5 %). The median (IQR) time the team stayed at the scene was 35 (20-50) minutes. At the scene, the most frequent actions were related to airway and ventilation, namely oxygen administration in 145 (37.3 %); in circulation, fluid were administered in 158 (40.6 %); overall medication was administered in 185 (47.5 %) patients. End-of-life decisions were part of the MET actions in 94 (24.1 %) patients. At the end of MET intervention, 73 (18.7 %) patients died at the scene, 190 (60.7 %) stayed on the ward and the remaining 123 patients were transferred to an increased level of care. Crude hospital mortality rate was 4.1 % in the 3 years previously to MET implementation and 3.6 % in the following 3 years (p < 0.001). During the study period, the rate of activation for medical inpatients was significantly higher than that for surgical inpatients. In our hospital, there is no 24/7 medical cover on the wards, with the exception of high-dependency and intensive care units; assuming that the number of unplanned admissions and chronic ill patients is greater in medical wards that could explain the difference found, which prompts the implementation of a 24/7 ward residence. The team stayed on site for half an hour and during that time most of the actions were simple and nurse-driven, but in one third of all activations medical actions were taken, and in a forth (24%) end-of-life decisions made, reinforcing the inclusion of a doctor in the MET. A significant decrease in overall hospital mortality rate was observed after the implementation of the MET. The composition of our MET with an ICU doctor and nurse was reinforced by the need of medical actions in more than half of the situations (either clinical actions or end-of-life decisions). After MET implementation there was a significant decrease in hospital mortality. This study reinforces the benefit of implementing an ICU-MET team.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 16%
Other 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 19 24%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Mathematics 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 24 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2016.
All research outputs
#12,656,356
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#706
of 1,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,681
of 300,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#28
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.