Digital Public Defence: Stine Engebretsen
MSc Stine Engebretsen at Institute of Clinical Medicine will be defending the thesis “Emergency response team to critically ill medical patients in the Emergency Department: Evaluation of patient characteristics, calling criteria and effect” for the degree of PhD (Philosophiae Doctor).
Photo: Jens Christian Holmberg.
The public defence will be held as a video conference over Zoom.
The defence will follow regular procedure as far as possible, hence it will be open to the public and the audience can ask ex auditorio questions when invited to do so.
Due to copyright reasons, an electronic copy of the thesis must be ordered from the faculty. In order for the faculty to have time to process the order, it must be received by the faculty no later than 2 days prior to the public defence. Orders received later than 2 days before the defence will not be processed. Inquiries regarding the thesis after the public defence must be addressed to the candidate.
Digital Trial Lecture – time and place
- First opponent: Klinisk Professor Kasper Karmark Iversen, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital
- Second opponent: Forsker II Hilde Valen Wæhle, Haukeland Universitetssykehus/Universitetet i Stavanger
- Third member and chair of the evaluation committee: Førsteamanuesis Aud Høieggen, University of Oslo
Chair of the Defence
Professor Mathis Korseberg Stokke, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo
Overlege Rune Rimstad, Oslo University Hospital
Critically ill and injured patients are at risk of fatal or serious outcomes if not managed immediately. Emergency response teams such as trauma teams and cardiac arrest teams are therefore commonly used to manage these patients in the emergency department (ED). There are few reports on the use of such teams for critically ill undifferentiated medical patients.
The aim of the thesis was to evaluate the use of team for critically ill undifferentiated medical patients in the ED, by investigating patient characteristics, calling criteria and effect. Medical record-data from two registers were used.
Team patients were young with little comorbidity. More than half received critical care interventions in the ED, one in four was diagnosed with acute poisoning and mortality was 17%. Intensive care unit (ICU) admittance was 56%, and being male and younger were associated with such admission.
The existing calling criteria for team were not optimal, but had better association with outcomes than different NEWS2 cut-offs; a much used system for identifying critically ill patients. Both had poor prognostic values.
Compared to standard care, team response was beneficial for improving process-outcomes, delivering critical care in the ED and identifying patients in need of ICU admission.
Overall, and despite the need for more research about the optimal calling criteria for team, the use of an emergency response team can be recommended for critically ill undifferentiated medical patients.
Contact the research support staff.