Kerridge Ross K, Saul W Peter
Division of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Management, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW.
Med J Aust. 2003 Sep 15;179(6):313-5. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05556.x.
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.
医疗急救团队（MET）可由医院内任何人召集，用于治疗病情急重的患者。该团队已被广泛认为具有科学合理性，不会产生不良临床后果，且资源需求适度。尽管如此，许多中心似乎仍在等待其有效性的“金标准”证据。我们认为，对证据的探寻为机构惰性提供了科学依据，而进一步推迟实施该系统甚至可能是不道德的。我们建议，关于医疗保健变革的决策应考虑科学合理性、临床合理性、资源影响以及证据和伦理影响。
