TY - JOUR T1 - Developing and evaluating the success of a family activated medical emergency team: a quality improvement report JF - BMJ Quality & Safety JO - BMJ Qual Saf SP - 203 LP - 211 DO - 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003001 VL - 24 IS - 3 AU - Patrick W Brady AU - Julie Zix AU - Richard Brilli AU - Derek S Wheeler AU - Kristie Griffith AU - Mary Jo Giaccone AU - Kathy Dressman AU - Uma Kotagal AU - Stephen Muething AU - Ken Tegtmeyer Y1 - 2015/03/01 UR - http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/24/3/203.abstract N2 - Background Family-activated medical emergency teams (MET) have the potential to improve the timely recognition of clinical deterioration and reduce preventable adverse events. Adoption of family-activated METs is hindered by concerns that the calls may substantially increase MET workload. We aimed to develop a reliable process for family activated METs and to evaluate its effect on MET call rate and subsequent transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods The setting was our free-standing children's hospital. We partnered with families to develop and test an educational intervention for clinicians and families, an informational poster in each patient room and a redesigned process with hospital operators who handle MET calls. We tracked our primary outcome of count of family-activated MET calls on a statistical process control chart. Additionally, we determined the association between family-activated versus clinician-activated MET and transfer to the ICU. Finally, we compared the reason for MET activation between family calls and a 2:1 matched sample of clinician calls. Results Over our 6-year study period, we had a total of 83 family-activated MET calls. Families made an average of 1.2 calls per month, which represented 2.9% of all MET calls. Children with family-activated METs were transferred to the ICU less commonly than those with clinician MET calls (24% vs 60%, p<0.001). Families, like clinicians, most commonly called MET for concerns of clinical deterioration. Families also identified lack of response from clinicians and a dismissive interaction between team and family as reasons. Conclusions Family MET activations were uncommon and not a burden on responders. These calls recognised clinical deterioration and communication failures. Family activated METs should be tested and implemented in hospitals that care for children. ER -