I like studies that question accepted practices. I also like to question studies that question accepted practices. [See this post
about discrediting discredited practices.]
Here are three new studies with surprising and thought-provoking results.
A few years ago, the idea of rapid response teams surfaced. These teams were supposed to be called when patients on regular floors became unstable. It was thought that such teams would be able to intervene more rapidly than simply paging the patient's physician.
Every hospital established rapid response teams, and early studies tended to confirm that they were efficacious. So all is well.
But a paper
from the journal Critical Care Medicine shows that rapid response teams increase costs and intensive care unit admissions without showing any improvement in risk-adjusted patient outcomes.
Naysayers will complain that it wasn't a randomized prospective double-blind study. But it was a large before-and-after cohort study from a respected institution, the Mayo Clinic.
The authors concluded that hospitals should at least evaluate their own experiences with rapid response teams.
, this time in JAMA, questions the validity of using rates of venous thromboembolic events as markers of hospital quality.
It seems the more diligently one looks for VTEs, the more one finds them. Hospitals that did more imaging studies looking for VTEs had significantly higher rates of VTE. They also had significantly higher rates of adherence to prophylaxis guidelines.
So if a patient was looking for a hospital with high quality care in the area of venous thromboembolic events, the rate of VTE might be very misleading.
A third study
, also from JAMA, looked at the use of universal precautions for all ICU patients in an effort to decrease the incidence of colonization or infection by antibiotic-resistant organisms.