ライフサイエンスコーパス: failure to rescue

1 1 patients with serious complications (10.5% failure to rescue).

2 ns, and mortality after major complications (failure to rescue).

3 experience postoperative complications die (failure to rescue).

4 hospital mortality, major complications, and failure to rescue.

5 fication of patients at the highest risk for failure to rescue.

6 adjusted mortality, major complications, and failure to rescue.

7 Risk-scoring system that predicts failure to rescue.

8 or associations with major complications and failure-to-rescue.

9 ; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11) increase in the odds of failure-to-rescue.

10 renal complications were associated with the failure-to-rescue.

11 enced by elevated target gene expression and failure to rescue a yan null mutation.

12 onged length of stay, and 2.68% vs 2.98% for failure to rescue (all P < .001).

13 admissions, but lower risk-adjusted rates of failure to rescue and 30-day mortality than did nonteach

14 admissions, but lower risk-adjusted rates of failure to rescue and 30-day mortality than did nonteach

15 study aims to assess the potential to derive failure to rescue and a proxy measure, based on long len

16 over time and measuring associations between failure to rescue and factors including staffing, we ass

17 irst study to assess the association between failure to rescue and medical staffing.

18 serious complications with similar rates of failure to rescue and overall 30-day mortality.

19 ve mortality, major and minor complications, failure to rescue, and hospital readmission.

20 staffing, we assess whether two measures of failure to rescue are useful nurse sensitive indicators.

21 s in hospital quality for trauma patients is failure-to-rescue as opposed to differences in complicat

22 There was a decrease in failure to rescue at high compared with low-HCI hospital

23 A risk-scoring system for failure to rescue, based on regression-derived variable

24 the incidence of complications and rates of failure to rescue between the top 20% of hospitals ("bes

25 Failure to rescue can be derived from English administra

26 involved in their care had reduced rates of failure to rescue compared with patients without residen

27 However, the rate of failure to rescue (death after a complication) was marke

28 Failure to rescue (death after postoperative complicatio

29 major complications and on the incidence of failure-to-rescue (death after a major complication), ad

30 'Failure to rescue'--death after a treatable complication

31 ame procedure type at the same hospital; and failure to rescue, defined as in-hospital death after th

32 Although the cause of failure to rescue DeltaF508-CFTR in the clinical trial h

33 These findings suggest that failure to rescue deteriorating patients is more common

34 Reducing failure to rescue events is a common quality target for

35 ses of care, incidence of complications, and failure to rescue following complications.

36 We examined the role of complications, failure to rescue from complications, and mortality base

37 total charges, mortality, complications, and failure to rescue (FTR) events.

38 Failure to rescue (FTR) has been proposed as an underlyi

39 s: Rates of 30-day morbidity, mortality, and failure to rescue (FTR) over time.

40 Failure to rescue (FTR), the mortality rate among surgic

41 Failure to rescue (FTR, death after a major complication

42 Our aim was to evaluate failure-to-rescue (FTR) after anastomotic leak (AL) in c

43 The failure to rescue function in the P2X2 subunit with both

44 More than two-thirds of patients with failure to rescue have multiple complications.

45 anding the preoperative factors that lead to failure to rescue helps surgeons predict and avoid opera

46 rates of mortality, major complications, and failure to rescue (ie, case fatality among patients with

47 Risk-adjusted major complication and failure-to-rescue (ie, mortality after major complicatio

48 AND PATIENTS: Observational study evaluating failure to rescue in patients entered into the American

49 e both associated with lower mortality based failure to rescue in the fully adjusted analysis (P<0.05

50 Complications associated with failure to rescue included acute renal failure, septic s

51 Failure to rescue is defined as the death of a patient f

52 eath (odds ratio = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.99), failure to rescue (odds ratio = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96)

53 within 30 days of admission and the odds of failure to rescue (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence inte

54 important to elucidate clinical pathways of failure to rescue or death after postoperative complicat

55 complications (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.34, 2.08), failure to rescue (OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.25, 5.94), and read

56 d nurses was associated with lower rates of "failure to rescue" (P=0.008).

57 ent of high-risk patients account for 90% of failure to rescue (Pareto principle).

58 A hospital's failure to rescue patients from major complications seem

59 Only 31.8% of failure-to-rescue patients had a single postoperative co

60 The failure to rescue rate (ie, proportion of deaths followi

61 ore patients surviving in LMUs than in HMUs (failure to rescue rate, 7.0% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

62 andardized clinical pathway could impact the failure-to-rescue rate after cytoreductive surgery (CRS)

63 ed management facilitated a reduction in the failure-to-rescue rate and improved the quality of care.

64 tients in low-mortality hospital had a lower failure-to-rescue rate compared to patients in high-mort

65 The failure-to-rescue rate is a useful metric for evaluating

66 The failure-to-rescue rate was 4.4% for the entire period, b

67 ted mortality, major complication rate, and "failure to rescue" rate (mortality in patients with a ma

68 due to differences in complication rates or failure to rescue rates (ie, case-fatality rates in pati

69 (esophagectomy) of the observed variation in failure to rescue rates across hospitals.

70 multidisciplinary care in order to minimize failure to rescue rates and improve survival.

71 12.2% vs 9.6%; P < .001), and LMUs had lower failure to rescue rates following reintervention than HM

72 ange: OR 1.09-1.62) significantly influenced failure to rescue rates for all procedures.

73 n of overall postoperative complications and failure to rescue rates on the observed increased mortal

74 ication rates ranged from 25.0% to 72.2% and failure to rescue rates ranged from 0.0% to 25.0%.

75 Failure to rescue rates varied up to 11-fold between ver

76 gistic regression modeling, we evaluated how failure to rescue rates were influenced by specific hosp

77 In contrast, failure to rescue rates were much higher at the worst co

78 ression analyses showed that mortality based failure to rescue rates were significantly associated (P

79 al characteristics are associated with lower failure to rescue rates, these macrosystem factors expla

80 stics on the between-hospital variability in failure to rescue rates.

81 Mortality (-0.5; 95% CI, -0.9 to -0.1) and failure-to-rescue rates (-4.5; 95% CI, -7.4 to -1.6) als

82 ains a very small proportion of variation in failure-to-rescue rates across hospitals.

83 Failure-to-rescue rates are higher at HMHs, which may ex

84 tilevel-models, HCI reduced the variation in failure-to-rescue rates between hospitals by 2.7% after

85 ve similar rates of complications but higher failure-to-rescue rates compared to patients in low-mort

86 Although higher failure-to-rescue rates in the elderly may signify their

87 hospital volume was more strongly related to failure-to-rescue rates than to complication rates.

88 When compared with younger patients, overall failure-to-rescue rates were almost 2-fold greater in th

89 Failure-to-rescue rates were lower at high-care intensit

90 However, failure-to-rescue rates were significantly higher in HMH

91 ce higher risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and failure-to-rescue rates, and nurses are more likely to e

92 Failure-to-rescue rates, however, were markedly higher i

93 cal patients experienced lower mortality and failure-to-rescue rates.

94 -adjusted mortality, major complication, and failure-to-rescue rates.

95 ng program, offers the best chance to reduce failure-to-rescue rates.

96 ave similar complication rates but disparate failure-to-rescue rates.

97 Failures to rescue rates were higher in patients 80 year

98 ences in the incidence of complications and "failure-to-rescue" rates (defined as death following a c

99 ates of complications (RR, 2.41; 2.31-2.51), failure to rescue (RR, 2.62; 2.35-2.90), and mortality (

100 death of a patient following a complication; failure to rescue-surgical is defined as the death of a

101 The failure to rescue-surgical rates were lower in LMUs than

102 unique to Cav-1alpha (Y14-->F) resulted in a failure to rescue the cav-1alpha morphant phenotype, ver

103 ned and identified patients at high risk for failure to rescue using propensity stratification.

104 Failure to rescue was the number of deaths in patients w

105 complications, comorbidities associated with failure to rescue were ascites, chronic obstructive pulm

106 Lower rates of failure to rescue were associated with a greater number

107 hospital mortality, major complications, and failure to rescue were associated with lower volumes of

108 01), shock or cardiac arrest (P=0.007), and "failure to rescue," which was defined as death from pneu

109 cts patients in the highest-risk category of failure to rescue with good accuracy.