ライフサイエンスコーパス: failure to rescue

1 spiratory failure, postoperative sepsis, and failure to rescue).

2 1 patients with serious complications (10.5% failure to rescue).

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

4 experience postoperative complications die (failure to rescue).

5 operative mortality, post-TCI mortality, and failure-to-rescue).

6 ing complications to lead to death-so-called failure to rescue.

7 morbidity-mortality composite end point, or failure to rescue.

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

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

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

11 Risk-scoring system that predicts failure to rescue.

12 ; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11) increase in the odds of failure-to-rescue.

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

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

15 ures of (1) postoperative complications, (2) failure to rescue, (3) individual postoperative complica

16 .55-percentage point higher hospital rate of failure to rescue (95% CI, 0.06-1.04 percentage points;

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

18 are was also associated with a lower risk of failure to rescue (adjusted relative risk, 0.55 [95% CI,

19 urther study is needed to understand whether failure to rescue after LRR may contribute to racial dis

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

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

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

23 to trigger an escalation of care to prevent failure to rescue and eventually poor outcome.

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

25 encounters), and EGS outcomes (risk-adjusted failure to rescue and in-hospital mortality).

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

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

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

29 stoperative 30-day mortality, complications, failure to rescue, and surgery-specific estimated costs

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

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

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

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

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

35 Failure to rescue can be derived from English administra

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

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

38 Failure to rescue (death after postoperative complicatio

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

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

41 Secondary outcome was failure to rescue, defined as a postoperative death afte

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

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

44 lower perioperative mortality and decreased failure to rescue despite veterans having higher-risk ch

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

46 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.68]; P = .83) and lower failure to rescue (eg, quartile 4 [highest] vs quartile

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

48 CI, 1.23-1.29; P < .001) and higher rates of failure to rescue (female: 10.71% vs male: 8.58%; aRR, 1

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

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

51 ately into quintiles of reliability-adjusted failure to rescue (FTR) and mortality rates.

52 Failure to rescue (FTR) describes in-hospital mortality

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

54 ion between centers' volume and incidence of failure to rescue (FTR) following liver resection for he

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

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

57 Failure to rescue (FTR) patients from death after a post

58 Outcomes were failure to rescue (FTR), mortality, number of subsequent

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

60 uld reduce postoperative mortality (POM) and failure to rescue (FTR).

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

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

63 ve mortality (POM), major morbidity (MM) and failure-to-rescue (FTR) after cytoreductive surgery (CRS

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

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

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

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

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

69 POPF in 410 (30.0%), which corresponded with failure to rescue in 8.9% (n=57/642).

70 d medical emergency teams that aim to reduce failure to rescue in general wards is only effective if

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

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

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

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

75 ther than gain-of-function) allele, and 4) a failure to rescue mpk-1-dependent germline or fertility

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

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

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

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

80 no correlation between center TCI rates and failure-to-rescue ( P=0.19).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

96 12.2% vs 9.6%; P < .001), and LMUs had lower failure to rescue rates following reintervention than HM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

106 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

122 Failures to rescue rates were higher in patients 80 year

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

124 Ss) of H17N10 or H18N11 M segment led to the failure to rescue recombinant viruses in the PR8 genetic

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

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

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

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

129 genetic barrier is manifest in our repeated failures to rescue the hypothetical revertant virus.

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

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

132 ates of 30-day mortality, complications, and failure to rescue were 0.8%, 9.5%, and 4.7%, respectivel

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

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

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

136 ates of complications, 30-day mortality, and failure to rescue, which was defined as a death occurrin

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

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