[Effects of pulmonary embolism response team on the quality of care and clinical outcomes in patients with acute pulmonary embolism].

To evaluate the effects of pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) on the quality of care and clinical outcomes in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. Patients with acute pulmonary embolism treated in Beijing Anzhen Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University from July 5, 2016 to July 4, 2018 were enrolled. Patients with acute pulmonary embolism who had traditional care from July 5, 2016 to July 4, 2017 (before the implementation of PERT) were classified as PERT pre-intervention group. Patients with acute pulmonary embolism who started PERT care from July 5, 2017 to July 4, 2018 were divided into the PERT intervention group. The diagnosis and treatment information of patients was collected through the electronic medical record system, and the quality of care (time from visit to hospitalization, time from hospitalization to anticoagulation initiation, time from visit to definitive diagnosis, total hospital stay, time in intensive care unit (ICU), hospitalization cost) and clinical outcomes (in-hospital mortality and incidence of bleeding) were compared between the two groups. A total of 210 patients with acute pulmonary embolism, aged (63.3±13.7) years old, with 102 (48.6%) female patients were included. There were 108 cases in PERT pre-intervention group and 102 cases in PERT intervention group. (1) Quality of diagnosis and treatment: there was a statistical significance between the two groups in the distribution of time from diagnosis to definitive diagnosis (0.002). Among them, the rate of completion of diagnosis within 24 hours after PERT intervention was higher than that before PERT intervention (80.4% (45/56) vs. 50.0% (34/68), 0.001). The time from treatment to hospitalization was shorter than that before PERT intervention (180.0 (60.0, 645.0) min vs. 900.0 (298.0, 1 806.5) min, 0.001). The total length of hospital stay was less than that before PERT intervention (12 (10, 14) d vs. 14 (11, 16) d, 0.001). There was no statistical significance in the time from hospitalization to anticoagulant therapy, the length of ICU stay and hospitalization cost between the two groups (all 0.05). (2) Clinical outcomes during hospitalization: There was no statistical significance in the incidence of hemorrhage and mortality between the two groups during hospitalization (both 0.05). PERT has improved the efficiency of diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute pulmonary embolism and significantly shortened the total hospital stay, but its impact on clinical outcomes still needs further study.