The illness severity of patients reviewed by the medical emergency team: A scoping review

Medical emergency teams (METs) are internationally used to manage hospitalised deteriorating patients. Although triggers for MET review and hospital outcomes have previously been widely reported, the illness severity at the point of MET review has not been reported. As such, levels of clinical acuity and patient dependency representing the risk of exposure to short-term adverse clinical outcomes remain largely unknown.

This scoping review sought to understand the illness severity of MET review recipients in terms of acuity and dependency.

This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. The published and grey literature since 2009 was searched to identify relevant articles reporting illness severity scores associated with hospitalised adult inpatients reviewed by a MET. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 17 articles (16 quantitative studies, one mixed-methods study) were reviewed, summarised, collated, and reported.

A total of 17 studies reported clinical acuity metrics for patients reviewed by a MET. No studies described an integrated risk score encompassing acuity, patient dependency, or wider parameters that might be associated with increased patient risk or the need for intervention. Multi-MET review, the use of specialist interventions, and delayed/transfer to the intensive care unit were associated with a greater risk of clinical deterioration, higher clinical acuity score, and predicted mortality risk. A single dependency metric was not reported although organisational levels of care, the duration of MET review, MET interventions, chronic illness, and frailty were inferred proxy measures.

Of the 17 studies reviewed, no single study provided an integrated assessment of illness severity from which to stratify risk or support patient management processes. Patients reviewed by a MET have variable and rapidly changing health needs that make them particularly vulnerable. The lack of high-quality data reporting acuity and dependency limits our understanding of true clinical risk and subsequent opportunities for pathway development.