Problem investigated: The activation and implementation of the Medical Emergency Team (MET) system. Procedures followed: The ability of the objective activation criteria to accurately identify patients at risk of three serious adverse events (cardiac arrest, unexpected death and unplanned intensive care admission) was assessed using a nested, matched case-control study. Sensitivity, specificity and Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC) analyses were performed. The MET implementation process was studied using two convenience sample surveys of the nursing staff from the general wards of twelve intervention hospitals. These surveys measured the awareness and understanding of the MET system, level of attendance at MET education sessions, knowledge of the activation criteria, level of intention to call the MET and overall attitude to the MET system, and the hospital level of support for change, hospital capability and hospital culture. The association of these measures with the intention to call the MET and the level of MET utilisation was assessed using nonparametric correlation. Results obtained: The respiratory rate was missing in 20% of subjects. Using listwise deletion, the set of objective activation criteria investigated predicted an adverse event within 24 hours with a sensitivity of 55.4% (50.6-60.0%) and specificity of 93.7% (91.2-95.6%). An analysis approach that assumed the missing values would not have resulted in MET activation provided a sensitivity of 50.4% (45.7- 55.2%) and specificity of 93.3% (90.8-95.3%). Alternative models with modified cut-off values provided different results. The MET system was implemented with variable success during the MERIT study. Knowledge and understanding of the system, hospital readiness, and a positive attitude were all significantly positively associated with MET system utilisation, while defensive hospital cultures were negatively associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Major conclusions: The objective activation criteria studied have acceptable accuracy, but modification of the criteria may be considered. A satisfactory trade-off between the identification of patients at risk and workload requirements may be difficult to achieve. Measures of effectiveness of the implementation process may be associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Trials of the MET system should ensure good knowledge and understanding of the system, particularly amongst nursing staff.

Problem investigated: The activation and implementation of the Medical Emergency Team (MET) system. Procedures followed: The ability of the objective activation criteria to accurately identify patients at risk of three serious adverse events (cardiac arrest, unexpected death and unplanned intensive care admission) was assessed using a nested, matched case-control study. Sensitivity, specificity and Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC) analyses were performed. The MET implementation process was studied using two convenience sample surveys of the nursing staff from the general wards of twelve intervention hospitals. These surveys measured the awareness and understanding of the MET system, level of attendance at MET education sessions, knowledge of the activation criteria, level of intention to call the MET and overall attitude to the MET system, and the hospital level of support for change, hospital capability and hospital culture. The association of these measures with the intention to call the MET and the level of MET utilisation was assessed using nonparametric correlation. Results obtained: The respiratory rate was missing in 20% of subjects. Using listwise deletion, the set of objective activation criteria investigated predicted an adverse event within 24 hours with a sensitivity of 55.4% (50.6-60.0%) and specificity of 93.7% (91.2-95.6%). An analysis approach that assumed the missing values would not have resulted in MET activation provided a sensitivity of 50.4% (45.7- 55.2%) and specificity of 93.3% (90.8-95.3%). Alternative models with modified cut-off values provided different results. The MET system was implemented with variable success during the MERIT study. Knowledge and understanding of the system, hospital readiness, and a positive attitude were all significantly positively associated with MET system utilisation, while defensive hospital cultures were negatively associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Major conclusions: The objective activation criteria studied have acceptable accuracy, but modification of the criteria may be considered. A satisfactory trade-off between the identification of patients at risk and workload requirements may be difficult to achieve. Measures of effectiveness of the implementation process may be associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Trials of the MET system should ensure good knowledge and understanding of the system, particularly amongst nursing staff.

Problem investigated: The activation and implementation of the Medical Emergency Team (MET) system. Procedures followed: The ability of the objective activation criteria to accurately identify patients at risk of three serious adverse events (cardiac arrest, unexpected death and unplanned intensive care admission) was assessed using a nested, matched case-control study. Sensitivity, specificity and Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC) analyses were performed. The MET implementation process was studied using two convenience sample surveys of the nursing staff from the general wards of twelve intervention hospitals. These surveys measured the awareness and understanding of the MET system, level of attendance at MET education sessions, knowledge of the activation criteria, level of intention to call the MET and overall attitude to the MET system, and the hospital level of support for change, hospital capability and hospital culture. The association of these measures with the intention to call the MET and the level of MET utilisation was assessed using nonparametric correlation. Results obtained: The respiratory rate was missing in 20% of subjects. Using listwise deletion, the set of objective activation criteria investigated predicted an adverse event within 24 hours with a sensitivity of 55.4% (50.6-60.0%) and specificity of 93.7% (91.2-95.6%). An analysis approach that assumed the missing values would not have resulted in MET activation provided a sensitivity of 50.4% (45.7- 55.2%) and specificity of 93.3% (90.8-95.3%). Alternative models with modified cut-off values provided different results. The MET system was implemented with variable success during the MERIT study. Knowledge and understanding of the system, hospital readiness, and a positive attitude were all significantly positively associated with MET system utilisation, while defensive hospital cultures were negatively associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Major conclusions: The objective activation criteria studied have acceptable accuracy, but modification of the criteria may be considered. A satisfactory trade-off between the identification of patients at risk and workload requirements may be difficult to achieve. Measures of effectiveness of the implementation process may be associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Trials of the MET system should ensure good knowledge and understanding of the system, particularly amongst nursing staff.

Problem investigated: The activation and implementation of the Medical Emergency Team (MET) system. Procedures followed: The ability of the objective activation criteria to accurately identify patients at risk of three serious adverse events (cardiac arrest, unexpected death and unplanned intensive care admission) was assessed using a nested, matched case-control study. Sensitivity, specificity and Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC) analyses were performed. The MET implementation process was studied using two convenience sample surveys of the nursing staff from the general wards of twelve intervention hospitals. These surveys measured the awareness and understanding of the MET system, level of attendance at MET education sessions, knowledge of the activation criteria, level of intention to call the MET and overall attitude to the MET system, and the hospital level of support for change, hospital capability and hospital culture. The association of these measures with the intention to call the MET and the level of MET utilisation was assessed using nonparametric correlation. Results obtained: The respiratory rate was missing in 20% of subjects. Using listwise deletion, the set of objective activation criteria investigated predicted an adverse event within 24 hours with a sensitivity of 55.4% (50.6-60.0%) and specificity of 93.7% (91.2-95.6%). An analysis approach that assumed the missing values would not have resulted in MET activation provided a sensitivity of 50.4% (45.7- 55.2%) and specificity of 93.3% (90.8-95.3%). Alternative models with modified cut-off values provided different results. The MET system was implemented with variable success during the MERIT study. Knowledge and understanding of the system, hospital readiness, and a positive attitude were all significantly positively associated with MET system utilisation, while defensive hospital cultures were negatively associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Major conclusions: The objective activation criteria studied have acceptable accuracy, but modification of the criteria may be considered. A satisfactory trade-off between the identification of patients at risk and workload requirements may be difficult to achieve. Measures of effectiveness of the implementation process may be associated with the level of MET system utilisation. Trials of the MET system should ensure good knowledge and understanding of the system, particularly amongst nursing staff.