Search

Background: Studies of nighttime intensivist staffing have yielded mixed results., Goals: To review the association of nighttime intensivist staffing with outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) patients., Methods: We searched five databases (2000-2016) for studies comparing in-hospital nighttime intensivist staffing with other nighttime staffing models in adult ICUs and reporting mortality or length of stay. We abstracted data on staffing models, outcomes, and study characteristics and assessed study quality, using standardized tools. Meta-analyses used random effects models., Results: Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria: one randomized controlled trial and 17 observational studies. Overall methodologic quality was high. Studies included academic hospitals (n = 10), community hospitals (n = 2), or both (n = 6). Baseline clinician staffing included residents (n = 9), fellows (n = 4), and nurse practitioners or physician assistants (n = 2). Studies included both general and specialty ICUs and were geographically diverse. Meta-analysis (one randomized controlled trial; three nonrandomized studies with exposure limited to nighttime intensivist staffing with adjusted estimates of effect) demonstrated no association with mortality (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.29). Secondary analyses including studies without risk adjustment, with a composite exposure of organizational factors, stratified by intensity of daytime staffing and by ICU type, yielded similar results. Minimal or no differences were observed in ICU and hospital length of stay and several other secondary outcomes., Conclusions: Notwithstanding limitations of the predominantly observational evidence, our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests nighttime intensivist staffing is not associated with reduced ICU patient mortality. Other outcomes and alternative staffing models should be evaluated to further guide staffing decisions.

Purpose: Signals are used to alert clinicians of potential ADRs. Positive predictive values (PPVs) of antidote signals in ICUs are unknown. The primary purpose was to determine PPVs of six signals. The secondary objective was to determine the sensitivity of various ADR detection strategies including manual chart review, administrative data review, and voluntary reporting at identifying the same ADRs discovered using antidotes as a signal., Methods: Adult patients admitted to a medical ICU from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 who were prescribed select signals were eligible. Evaluated antidote signals included injectable diphenhydramine, protamine, phytonadione, dextrose 50%, injectable methylprednisolone, and sodium polystyrene. For each signal, a random sample of 50 patients was evaluated for the presence of an ADR. ADR occurrences were determined using two objective causality instruments through retrospective chart review. Agreement between the instruments was required for ADR consideration. PPVs were determined for each signal., Results: Two hundred and twenty three patients (52% male) were evaluated, with a mean +/- SD age of 60 +/- 17 years, and a median simplified acute physiology score (SAPSII) of 48. PPVs were 0.64, 0.50, 0.38, 0.26, 0.24, and 0.02 for protamine, sodium polystyrene, dextrose 50%, diphenhydramine, phytonadione, and methylprednisolone, respectively. Sensitivity of other detection strategies from highest to lowest was chart review for explicit documentation, administrative database review, and voluntary reporting., Conclusions: Protamine and sodium polystyrene performed the best by detecting ADRs in at least one out of two evaluations. Detection strategies other than signals were not as sensitive at identifying the same ADRs as antidote signals., (Copyright (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)