Back

How Are Rapid Response Services Implemented Or Changed, And How Is Their Success Measured? A Systematic Review Protocol

Rowley, R. A.; Poulter, A.-L.; Smith, A.; Pollock, E.; Bush, D.; Patel, P.; Lam, M.; Webb, L.; Jones, D.; Delaney, A.

2024-01-02 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.1101/2024.01.01.24300694 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionRapid Response Teams (RRT) exist in many different formats. With escalating rapid response calls, RRT services need to adapt to meet demand. We will describe how RRT service changes are implemented, either as a novel service or service redesign, and how the success of the implementation is measured. Methods and analysisWe will systematically review observational cohort studies that involve RRT implementation service change, and measure their implementation success. We will extract data relating to the study characteristics, team characteristics, methods of change implementation, and the outcome measures. The analysis will be primarily narrative, and we will present simple statistics regarding the range and frequency of the methods of implementation. Ethics and disseminationAs this review is of published studies, it does not require ethical approval. We aim to present our results at scientific meetings and publish the manuscript to a peer reviewed journal. Trial registration numberThis protocol will be registered on the preprint server medRxiv. Strengths and limitations of this studyThe review addresses a relevant question, and will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of RRT services, and their measures of outcomes. It will serve to provide a basis for future study. We acknowledge that there will be limitations, including heterogeneity of eligible studies, such as variability in team name, composition, resource base, and differing outcome reporting. Additionally, it may be limited by the lack of studies relating to the implementation of services/change management.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.