The medical emergency team, evidence‐based medicine and ethics
- 15 September 2003
- journal article
- Published by AMPCo in The Medical Journal of Australia
- Vol. 179 (6) , 313-315
- https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05556.x
Abstract
The medical emergency team (MET), which may be summoned by anyone in a hospital to treat a patient who appears acutely unwell, has been generally accepted as scientifically rational, with no adverse clinical outcomes and only modest resource requirements. Despite this, many centres appear to be awaiting "gold standard" evidence of its effectiveness. We suggest that the quest for evidence is providing scientific justification for institutional inertia, and that further delay in implementing this system may even be unethical. We propose that decisions about changes in healthcare should consider scientific rationality, clinical reasonableness and resource implications, as well as evidence and ethical implications.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Cyclooxygenase-2 Selective Inhibitors in the Management of Chronic ArthritisAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2003
- Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusionsBMJ, 2003
- Comprehensive Critical Care: a national strategic framework in all but nameIntensive Care Medicine, 2003
- Recombinant human activated protein C in sepsis: Inconsistent trial results, an unclear mechanism of action, and safety concerns resulted in labeling restrictions and the need for phase IV trialsCritical Care Medicine, 2003
- An Economic Evaluation of Activated Protein C Treatment for Severe SepsisNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- What Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine?Philosophy of Science, 2002
- Confidential inquiry into quality of care before admission to intensive careBMJ, 1998
- Personal paper: Ethics and evidence based medicineBMJ, 1998
- Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn'tBMJ, 1996
- IMPLEMENTATION OF A TRAUMA TEAMAnz Journal of Surgery, 1989