Responses

Download PDFPDF
Modelling the allocation of paediatric intensive care retrieval teams in England and Wales
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Additional considerations for future modelling of paediatric intensive care retrieval teams in England and Wales
    • Benedict T Griffiths, Paediatric Intensive Care Consultant South Thames Retrieval Service
    • Other Contributors:
      • Andrew G Nyman, Paediatric Intensive Care Consultant
      • Jonathan Lillie, Paediatric Intensive Care Consultant
      • Alison Pienaar, Paediatric Intensive Care Consultant
      • Miriam Fine-Goulden, Paediatric Intensive Care Consultant
      • Marilyn McDougall, Paediatric Intensive Care Consultant
      • Shelley Riphagen, Paediatric Intensive Care Consultant

    We commend the DEPICT group for gathering evidence to support or refute the current set of performance standards for specialist paediatric intensive care retrieval teams (PICRTs), for which there is currently limited evidence base.

    A key tenet of ‘the paper’ was geographical distance as the sole reason for a breach in the 180 minute to bedside standard.[1] In our experience, the commonest reason to breach was ‘team availability’. In 2018 South Thames Retrieval Service (STRS) performed 824 emergency retrievals. In 4% of these, the team did not reach the bedside within 180 minutes. On 33/36 occasions, the reason for delay was lack of availability of retrieval team due to concurrent deployment.

    STRS is commissioned to staff two teams on every shift. In 2018 32% of retrievals were performed concurrently. STRS is the second busiest PICRT in the UK, however on 29 % of shifts, no retrieval team was launched. STRS is a fully integrated retrieval service –all staff are based in the intensive care unit, and when not on retrieval work clinically in the PICU. This allows flexible staffing and in times of high demand, helps support increased PICU bed capacity. In 2018, 98.8% of patients were kept within region.

    The authors highlight the importance of mobilisation time. Despite the integration of our service within a busy PICU, STRS recorded the highest national compliance with the mobilisation standard for 2017.[2]

    In our region 90% of intubations are p...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    Ben Griffiths is site PI for the DEPICT study at Evelina London