GUIDELINES PAPERGuidelines for the uniform reporting of data for Medical Emergency Teams☆
Introduction
It is more than 15 years since the first Medical Emergency Team (MET) system was introduced to identify patients at risk and prevent serious adverse events in Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia.1, 2 Following its introduction at Liverpool Hospital, the MET system was also implemented in the other five acute hospitals that formed South Western Sydney Area Health Service (serving a population > 800,000). South Western Sydney Area health service was recently amalgamated with Central Sydney Area Health Service to form Sydney South West Area Health Service (population >1.3 million). The MET system has also been introduced to other hospitals in Australia and many countries around the world.
Although studies from Australia, in particular the recent MERIT study, have added significantly to our knowledge, there are few data assessing the introduction and impact of MET systems.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Recognising that more data are required on these important interventions emphasises the need for uniformity in reporting MET activity.
Uniform reporting of data related to MET activity has been in place since the introduction of our area-wide MET system. The data set has been reviewed and revised over the years in response to results and feedback from clinicians involved in the MET system and forms part of our quality improvement system. The MET calling criteria have also been evaluated recently during a multi-centre cluster randomised trial of MET system implementation (the MERIT study) and this will be the subject of a future paper.
In this guideline paper we present the current MET data set, which includes distinct elements related to the MET system. The system is designed to identify patients at risk of adverse events as early as possible in their clinical course.
Section snippets
The process of data collection
The MET call data form (Appendix A) is completed by the MET leader at the time of the MET call. The data from this form are entered into the MET database (Microsoft Access) and are used to generate weekly, monthly and annual reports on MET activities for audit and quality improvement. The weekly data are reviewed at a weekly multidisciplinary MET audit meeting. This provides the opportunity to review issues in a timely fashion. Summary data on MET call activity are reported to relevant Division
Discussion
Outcome following in-hospital adverse events is dependent on critical interventions and resources provided within a complex system of care. Challenges such as adequate data definition, collection, linkage, confidentiality, management, and registry implementation are increasingly acknowledged as limitations for quality improvement practices and research. Uniform reporting of data in relation to cardiac arrest has improved understanding of the elements of resuscitation practice and helped
References (10)
- et al.
The Medical Emergency Team: a new strategy to identify and intervene in high-risk patients
Clin Intensive Care
(1995) - et al.
The Medical Emergency Team
Anaesth Intensive Care
(1995) - et al.
Effects of a medical emergency team on reduction of incidence of and mortality from unexpected cardiac arrests in hospital: preliminary study
BMJ
(2002) - et al.
Rates of in-hospital arrests, deaths and intensive care admissions: the effect of a medical emergency team
Med J Aust
(2000) - et al.
A prospective before-and-after trial of a medical emergency team
Med J Aust
(2003)
Cited by (0)
- ☆
A Spanish translated version of the Summary of this article appears as Appendix in the online version at 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2005.06.009.