This evidence theme on rapid response teams is a summary of one of the key topics identified by a scoping review of dementia research. If you need more information on this topic, try using the PubMed search below.
We found one systematic review examining the benefits of rapid response teams. Of the service models reviewed, none were directly comparable to the Severe Behaviour Response Teams when it came to scale, client group, mode of delivery, acuity of risk and operational settings. [2] However, five components were common to each: ‘clearly defined parameters and processes; provision of clinical expertise and knowledge translation activities; person-centred philosophy; relationship-oriented approach to stakeholders; and generalisable and sustainable outcomes’. [2]
Many studies reported benefits of rapid response teams. Outcomes for people living with dementia included reduced:
- Severity of behaviours
- Hospital referrals
- Agitation
- Pain
- Verbally disruptive behaviour
- Neuropsychiatric symptoms
- Re-hospitalisation
- Minor depressive symptoms
- Grief reactions
- Admissions to acute care
- Use of anti-psychotics. [2]
Rapid response teams also improved:
- Quality of life
- Satisfaction with service
- Prevention of placement breakdown. [2]
For people living with dementia, there was no clear evidence of benefit for:
- Depression
- Mental or global state. [2]
In other words, studies assessed the relationship between rapid response teams and these outcomes, but no benefit was reported.
Rapid response teams were also associated with benefits for staff and organisations. These benefits include reduced:
- Stress/distress
- Need for specialist consultation. [2]
Rapid response teams also improved:
- Confidence in supporting and managing behaviours in people living with dementia
- Knowledge of mental health
- Satisfaction among facility management
- Organisational culture
- Satisfaction with treatment team and specialist support
- Streamlining of processes
- Rapport with community psychiatric nurses
- Compliance in using protocols/guidelines
- Cost-effectiveness. [2]
The authors of the review did not discuss the methodological limitations of the included studies.