Background: As part of a rapid response team (RRT), respiratory therapists (RTs) respond to deteriorating patients, bringing tools for diagnostics and intervention to the bedside. Introducing standards to improve care by RRTs is associated with improved outcomes. Additionally, it is recommended that RRTs have tools available for relevant interventions, such as medications, oxygen delivery devices, pulse oximetry, and capnography. However, excessive equipment may impact timely care delivery. We aimed to standardize RRT RT equipment packs, evaluate cost differences, quality concerns and overall staff satisfaction. Methods: RRTs shared that RRT rapid packs (RP) were heavy and that supplies were difficult to find, leading to care delays. An interprofessional group (providers, RNs, RTs, security) reviewed RP contents as part of the medical emergency response team (MERT) debrief, developed a color-coded inventory system, selected an equipment bag (not included in total costs), and aligned contents with group recommendations. Post-implementation, the MERT members and RTs were surveyed utilizing a Likert scale (Fig. 1). In an IRB exempt review, usability, cost, and weight pre- and post- changes were evaluated. Results: Prior to the April 1, 2024 inventory adjustments to the RRT rapid packs (RP), 66 items were included in the RP and 43 items were in the RRT RP after modifications. The cost of the items pre (1, 559. 71) and post (1, 491. 26) was reduced by 68. 45 per pack. The weight of the bag was 9 lbs pre and 7. 9 lbs post (12. 2% reduction in RP weight). Survey results showed 39% response rate (13/33 RTs responded) with an 84. 6% of respondents preferring the new RP over the old version. Additionally, 92. 3% of respondents felt the necessary equipment was available in the new RP. No supply availability-related increase in incident reports, safety events, or RRT to code escalations occurred during the study period. Conclusions: Using an interdisciplinary approach to standardizing RRT supplies, we were able to decrease supply weight and cost while increasing accessibility for RTs. Involving the end-users in the process improvement efforts led to a positive response to the new RPs and ensured the right supplies were available. Further investigation is needed to determine impact on patient outcomes. Figure 1 Details the new rapid pack staff survey results
Bazelak et al. (Tue,) studied this question.