We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Commentary |

Rethinking Rapid Response Teams

Eugene Litvak, PhD; Peter J. Pronovost, MD, PhD
JAMA. 2010;304(12):1375-1376. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1385.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Current debate in the medical community centers on the benefits of rapid response teams (RRTs), hospital-based teams composed of clinicians with intensive care unit (ICU)–level clinical expertise. These teams rapidly respond when the condition of patients being cared for outside of the ICU suddenly deteriorates, and such patients often require transfer to ICUs.1 Those on one side of the debate suggest that RRTs save lives; this assertion is supported by common sense, numerous anecdotal reports, and some observational studies.2 Those on the other side of the debate suggest that preventing, recognizing, and treating deteriorating patients is common sense. How best to achieve this remains elusive based on systematic reviews,3 which have failed to show benefit of RRTs but note that RRT studies were often of poor quality and clinicians often failed to call an RRT when they should have, leading to uncertainty in the estimates of benefit. Proponents favor further research, encouraging hospitals to experiment with strategies such as RRTs, enhanced nurse staffing, or hospitalists who would respond to deteriorating patients, stressing prevention rather than recovery from deterioration. Those on both sides of the debate are united in their frustration that patients are needlessly experiencing morbidity and agree that preventing patients' health from deteriorating is the optimal solution.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

34 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles