{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016877637130801686, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030942334739803096, 'mean_word_length': 5.381165919282512, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The effect of critical care outreach on postoperative serious adverse events

We proposed that critical care outreach would decrease the incidence of postoperative serious adverse events and so conducted a sequential cohort study with a surveillance‐only phase (baseline) followed by an intervention phase. We studied high‐risk patients in a large Australian hospital. A critical care qualified nurse reviewed patients for the first three days after return to the general wards. During the intervention phase the nurse intervened in patient care where appropriate. We examined the incidence of 11 categories of serious adverse events per 100 patients during the first three days on the general wards during the surveillance and intervention phases. The surveillance phase had 319 patients and the intervention phase 345 patients. In a subgroup analysis, there were four myocardial infarctions per 100 patients in the surveillance phase and seven per 100 patients during the intervention phase (95% confidence interval: 1–7 infarctions per 100 patients increase). For the other 10 serious adverse events there were 19 per 100 patients in the surveillance phase and 11 per 100 patients in the intervention phase (95% confidence interval: 4–11 serious adverse events per 100 patients decrease). Outreach may have led to greater detection of myocardial infarctions while reducing the incidence of other serious adverse events.