Search

Background: Implementation of telemedicine programs in ICUs (tele-ICUs) may improve patient outcomes, but the costs of these programs are unknown. We performed a systematic literature review to summarize existing data on the costs of tele-ICUs and collected detailed data on the costs of implementing a tele-ICU in a network of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies published between January 1, 1990, and July 1, 2011, reporting costs of tele-ICUs. Studies were summarized, and key cost data were abstracted. We then obtained the costs of implementing a tele-ICU in a network of seven VHA hospitals and report these costs in light of the existing literature.Results: Our systematic review identified eight studies reporting tele-ICU costs. These studies suggested combined implementation and first year of operation costs for a tele-ICU of $50,000 to $100,000 per monitored ICU-bed. Changes in patient care costs after tele-ICU implementation ranged from a $3,000 reduction to a $5,600 increase in hospital cost per patient. VHA data suggested a cost for implementation and first year of operation of $70,000 to $87,000 per ICU-bed, depending on the depreciation methods applied.Conclusions: The cost of tele-ICU implementation is substantial, and the impact of these programs on hospital costs or profits is unclear. Until additional data become available, clinicians and administrators should carefully weigh the clinical and economic aspects of tele-ICUs when considering investing in this technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Severe sepsis is common and highly morbid, yet the epidemiology of severe sepsis at the frontier of the health care system-pre-hospital emergency care-is unknown.Objectives: We examined the epidemiology of pre-hospital severe sepsis among emergency medical services (EMS) encounters, relative to acute myocardial infarction and stroke.Methods: Retrospective study using a community-based cohort of all nonarrest, nontrauma King County EMS encounters from 2000 to 2009 who were transported to a hospital.Measurements and Main Results: Overall incidence rate of hospitalization with severe sepsis among EMS encounters, as well as pre-hospital characteristics, admission diagnosis, and outcomes. Among 407,176 EMS encounters, we identified 13,249 hospitalizations for severe sepsis, of whom 2,596 died in the hospital (19.6%). The crude incidence rate of severe sepsis was 3.3 per 100 EMS encounters, greater than for acute myocardial infarction or stroke (2.3 per 100 and 2.2 per 100 EMS encounters, respectively). More than 40% of all severe sepsis hospitalizations arrived at the emergency department after EMS transport, and 80% of cases were diagnosed on admission. Pre-hospital care intervals, on average, exceeded 45 minutes for those hospitalized with severe sepsis. One-half or fewer of patients with severe sepsis were transported by paramedics (n = 7,114; 54%) or received pre-hospital intravenous access (n = 4,842; 37%).Conclusions: EMS personnel care for a substantial and increasing number of patients with severe sepsis, and spend considerable time on scene and during transport. Given the emphasis on rapid diagnosis and intervention for sepsis, the pre-hospital interval may represent an important opportunity for recognition and care of sepsis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Lack of health insurance maybe an independent risk factor for mortality and differential treatment in critical illness.Objectives: To determine whether uninsured critically ill patients had differences in 30-day mortality and critical care service use compared with those with private insurance and to determine if outcome variability could be attributed to patient-level or hospital-level effects.Methods: Retrospective cohort study using Pennsylvania hospital discharge data with detailed clinical risk adjustment, from fiscal years 2005 and 2006, consisting of 167 general acute care hospitals, with 138,720 critically ill adult patients 64 years of age or younger.Measurements and Main Results: Measurements were 30-day mortality and receipt of five critical care procedures. Uninsured patients had an absolute 30-day mortality of 5.7%, compared with 4.6% for those with private insurance and 6.4% for those with Medicaid. Increased 30-day mortality among uninsured patients persisted after adjustment for patient characteristics (odds ratio [OR], 1.25 for uninsured vs. insured; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–1.50) and hospital-level effects (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05–1.51). Compared with insured patients, uninsured patients had decreased risk-adjusted odds of receiving a central venous catheter (OR, 0.84; 95% CI,0.72–0.97), acute hemodialysis (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39–0.91), and tracheostomy (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29–0.64).Conclusions: Lack of health insurance is associated with increased 30-day mortality and decreased use of common procedures for the critically ill in Pennsylvania. Differences were not attributable to hospital-level effects, suggesting that the uninsured have a higher mortality and receive fewer procedures when compared with privately insured patients treated at the same hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ICU telemedicine uses audiovisual conferencing technology to provide critical care from a remote location. Research is needed to best define the optimal use of ICU telemedicine, but efforts are hindered by methodological challenges and the lack of an organized delivery approach. We convened an interdisciplinary working group to develop a research agenda in ICU telemedicine, addressing both methodological and knowledge gaps in the field. To best inform clinical decision-making and health policy, future research should be organized around a conceptual framework that enables consistent descriptions of both the study setting and the telemedicine intervention. The framework should include standardized methods for assessing the preimplementation ICU environment and describing the telemedicine program. This framework will facilitate comparisons across studies and improve generalizability by permitting context-specific interpretation. Research based on this framework should consider the multidisciplinary nature of ICU care and describe the specific program goals. Key topic areas to be addressed include the effect of ICU telemedicine on the structure, process, and outcome of critical care delivery. Ideally, future research should attempt to address causation instead of simply associations and elucidate the mechanism of action in order to determine exactly how ICU telemedicine achieves its effects. ICU telemedicine has significant potential to improve critical care delivery, but high-quality research is needed to best inform its use. We propose an agenda to advance the science of ICU telemedicine and generate research with the greatest potential to improve patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is a novel sedative agent that causes anxiolysis without respiratory depression in critically ill patients. We sought to examine patient and hospital variation in dexmedetomidine use and adoption patterns of dexmedetomidine over time. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients who received intravenous infusion sedation in 174 intensive care units contributing data to Project IMPACT from 2001 through 2007. Sedation use was defined as having received an intravenous sedative infusion (dexmedetomidine, midazolam, lorazepam, or propofol) for any period during the intensive care stay. The primary outcome was use of dexmedetomidine in the intensive care unit. RESULTS: Of 58,391 patients who received intravenous infusion sedation, 2,535 (4.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2-4.5) received dexmedetomidine. Overall use was highest in cardiac surgery patients (11.7%, 10.8-12.7) and was similar in other surgical patients (4.3%, 4.0-4.6) and medical patients (3.4%, 3.2-3.6, P < 0.001). Use of dexmedetomidine increased from 2.0% (1.6-2.4) of patients receiving intravenous infusion sedation in 2001 to 7.2% (6.6-7.9) in 2007 (P < 0.001), primarily because of an increase in use in cardiac surgery patients (1.4%, 0.0-2.8, in 2001 vs. 20.2%, 17.6-22.8 in 2007, P < 0.001). Of the patients who received dexmedetomidine, 31.5% (29.6-33.3) received the infusion for more than 1 day, and 10.9% were not mechanically ventilated. CONCLUSION: Use of dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients has increased over time, primarily as a result of an increase in use among cardiac surgery patients. A substantial portion of dexmedetomidine was administered outside of the regulatory approval guidelines at the time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Growing numbers of critically ill patients receive prolonged mechanical ventilation. Little is known about the patterns of care as patients transition from acute care hospitals to postacute care facilities or about the associated resource utilization.Objective: To describe 1-year trajectories of care and resource utilization for patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation.Design: 1-year prospective cohort study.Setting: 5 intensive care units at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.Participants: 126 patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation (defined as ventilation for >or=4 days with tracheostomy placement or ventilation for >or=21 days without tracheostomy), as well as their 126 surrogates and 54 intensive care unit physicians, enrolled consecutively over 1 year.Measurements: Patients and surrogates were interviewed in the hospital, as well as 3 and 12 months after discharge, to determine patient survival, functional status, and facility type and duration of postdischarge care. Physicians were interviewed in the hospital to elicit prognoses. Institutional billing records were used to assign costs for acute care, outpatient care, and interfacility transportation. Medicare claims data were used to assign costs for postacute care.Results: 103 (82%) hospital survivors had 457 separate transitions in postdischarge care location (median, 4 transitions [interquartile range, 3 to 5 transitions]), including 68 patients (67%) who were readmitted at least once. Patients spent an average of 74% (95% CI, 68% to 80%) of all days alive in a hospital or postacute care facility or receiving home health care. At 1 year, 11 patients (9%) had a good outcome (alive with no functional dependency), 33 (26%) had a fair outcome (alive with moderate dependency), and 82 (65%) had a poor outcome (either alive with complete functional dependency [4 patients; 21%] or dead [56 patients; 44%]). Patients with poor outcomes were older, had more comorbid conditions, and were more frequently discharged to a postacute care facility than patients with either fair or good outcomes (P < 0.05 for all). The mean cost per patient was $306,135 (SD, $285,467), and total cohort cost was $38.1 million, for an estimated $3.5 million per independently functioning survivor at 1 year.Limitation: The results of this single-center study may not be applicable to other centers.Conclusion: Patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation have multiple transitions of care, resulting in substantial health care costs and persistent, profound disability. The optimism of surrogate decision makers should be balanced by discussions of these outcomes when considering a course of prolonged life support.Primary Funding Source: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Variation in the quality of critical care services across hospitals coupled with an emerging workforce crisis necessitates system-level change in the organization of intensive care. In this review, we evaluate three alternative organizational models that may expand access to high-quality critical care: tiered regionalization, intensive care unit telemedicine, and quality improvement through regional outreach. These models share a potential to increase survival and reduce costs. Yet there are also major barriers to implementation, including the lack of a strong evidence base and the need for significant upfront financial investment. Reorganization of intensive care will also require the support of all involved stakeholders: patients and their families, critical care practitioners, administrative and public health professionals, and policy makers. To varying degrees these models require a central authority to implement and regulate the system, as well as specific legislation, investment in information technology, and financial incentives for providers. The existing evidence does not strongly support exclusive use of a particular model, and creation of a hybrid model that integrates the three complementary approaches is a practical option. A potential framework for implementation involves triage guidelines developed by professional societies leading to demonstration projects and national legislation in support of optimal systems. Additional research is needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and cost implications of these approaches, with a goal of best matching high-quality critical care to patients' needs and professional preferences at the hospital, regional, and national level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

RATIONALE: General intensive care units (ICUs) provide care across a wide range of diagnoses, whereas specialty ICUs provide diagnosis-specific care. Risk-adjusted outcome differences across such units are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between specialty ICU care and the outcome of critical illness. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study design analyzing patients admitted to 124 ICUs participating in the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV from January 2002 to December 2005. We examined 84,182 patients admitted to specialty and general ICUs with an admitting diagnosis or procedure of acute coronary syndrome, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, pneumonia, abdominal surgery, or coronary-artery bypass graft surgery. ICU type was determined by a local data coordinator at each site. Patients were classified by admission to a general ICU, a diagnosis-appropriate ('ideal') specialty ICU, or a diagnosis-inappropriate ('non-ideal') specialty ICU. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and ICU length of stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After adjusting for important confounders, there were no significant differences in risk-adjusted mortality between general versus ideal specialty ICUs for all conditions other than pneumonia. Risk-adjusted mortality was significantly greater for patients admitted to non-ideal specialty ICUs. There was no consistent effect of specialization on length of stay for all patients or for ICU survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Ideal specialty ICU care appears to offer no survival benefit over general ICU care for select common diagnoses. Non-ideal specialty ICU care (i.e., 'boarding') is associated with increased risk-adjusted mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Studies describing predictors of mortality in patients with acute lung injury were primarily derived from selected academic centers. We sought to determine the predictors of mortality in a population-based cohort of patients with acute lung injury and to characterize the performance of current severity of illness scores in this population. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective, multicenter, population-based cohort. SETTING: Twenty-one hospitals in Washington State. PATIENTS: The cohort included 1,113 patients with acute lung injury identified during the year 1999-2000. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We evaluated physiology, comorbidities, risk factors for acute lung injury, and other variables for their association with death at hospital discharge. Bivariate predictors of death were entered into a multiple logistic regression model. We compared Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, APACHE III, and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II to the multivariable model using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The model was validated in an independent cohort of 886 patients with acute lung injury. Modified acute physiology score, age, comorbidities, arterial pH, minute ventilation, PaCO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, intensive care unit admission source, and intensive care unit days before onset of acute lung injury were independently predictive of in-hospital death (p < .05). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the multivariable model was superior to that of APACHE III (.81 vs. .77, p < .001) but was no different after external validation (.71 vs. .70, p = .64). CONCLUSIONS: The predictors of mortality in patients with acute lung injury are similar to those predictive of mortality in the general intensive care unit population, indicating disease heterogeneity within this cohort. Accordingly, APACHE III predicts mortality in acute lung injury as well as a model using variables selected specifically for patients with acute lung injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Adult critical care services are a large, expensive part of U.S. health care. The current agenda for response to workforce shortages and rising costs has largely been determined by members of the critical care profession without input from other stakeholders. We sought to elicit the perceived problems and solutions to the delivery of critical care services from a broad set of U.S. stakeholders.Design: A consensus process involving purposive sampling of identified stakeholders, preconference Web-based survey, and 2-day conference.Setting: Participants represented healthcare providers, accreditation and quality-oversight groups, federal sponsoring institutions, healthcare vendors, and institutional and individual payers.Subjects: We identified 39 stakeholders for the field of critical care medicine. Thirty-six (92%) completed the preconference survey and 37 (95%) attended the conference.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: Participants expressed moderate to strong agreement with the concerns identified by the critical care professionals and additionally expressed consternation that the critical care delivery system was fragmented, variable, and not patient-centered. Recommended solutions included regionalizing the adult critical care system into 'tiers' defined by explicit triage criteria and professional competencies, achieved through voluntary hospital accreditation, supported through an expanded process of competency certification, and monitored through process and outcome surveillance; implementing mechanisms for improved communication across providers and settings and between providers and patients/families; and conducting market research and a public education campaign regarding critical care's promises and limitations.Conclusions: This consensus conference confirms that agreement on solutions to complex healthcare delivery problems can be achieved and that problem and solution frames expand with broader stakeholder participation. This process can be used as a model by other specialties to address priority setting in an era of shifting demographics and increasing resource constraints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Transferring critically ill patients to other acute care hospitals may artificially impact benchmarking measures. We sought to quantify the effect of out-of-hospital transfers on the standardized mortality ratio (SMR), an outcome-based measure of ICU performance. METHODS: We performed a cohort study and Monte Carlo simulation using data from 85 ICUs participating in the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) clinical information system from 2002 to 2003. The SMR (observed divided by expected hospital mortality) was calculated for each ICU using APACHE IV risk adjustment. A set number of patients was randomly assigned to be transferred out alive rather than experience their original outcome. The SMR was recalculated, and the mean simulated SMR was compared to the original. RESULTS: The mean (+/- SD) baseline SMR was 1.06 +/- 0.19. In the simulation, increasing the number of transfers by 2% and 6% over baseline decreased the SMR by 0.10 +/- 0.03 and 0.14 +/- 0.03, respectively. At a 2% increase, 27 ICUs had a decrease in SMR of > 0.10, and two ICUs had a decrease in SMR of > 0.20. Transferring only one additional patient per month was enough to create a bias of > 0.1 in 27 ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the number of acute care transfers by a small amount can significantly bias the SMR, leading to incorrect inference about ICU quality. Sensitivity to the variation in hospital discharge practices greatly limits the use of the SMR as a quality measure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increased volume of patients is associated with improved survival in numerous high-risk medical and surgical conditions. The relationship between the number of patients admitted (hospital volume) and outcome among patients with critical illnesses is unknown.Methods: We analyzed data from 20,241 nonsurgical patients receiving mechanical ventilation at 37 acute care hospitals in the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation clinical information system from 2002 through 2003. Multivariate analyses were performed to adjust for the severity of illness and other differences in the case mix.Results: An increase in hospital volume was associated with improved survival among patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in the hospital. Admission to a hospital in the highest quartile according to volume (i.e., >400 patients receiving mechanical ventilation per year) was associated with a 37 percent reduction in the adjusted odds of death in the ICU as compared with admission to hospitals in the lowest quartile (< or =150 patients receiving mechanical ventilation per year, P<0.001). In-hospital mortality was similarly reduced (adjusted odds ratio, 0.66; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.83; P<0.001). A typical patient in a hospital in a low-volume quartile would have an adjusted in-hospital mortality of 34.2 percent as compared with 25.5 percent in a hospital in a high-volume quartile. Among survivors, there were no significant trends in the length of stay in the ICU or the hospital.Conclusions: Mechanical ventilation of patients in a hospital with a high case volume is associated with reduced mortality. Further research is needed to determine the mechanism of the relationship between volume and outcome among patients with a critical illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Pulmonary complications account for significant morbidity and mortality following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage; however, the effect of acute lung injury is largely unknown. The goal of this study was to determine the incidence of acute lung injury in a large cohort of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage as well as determine the risk factors for acute lung injury and its effect on mortality and length of stay. Ventilator management was analyzed to determine the proportion of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage and acute lung injury who a received a low-tidal volume ventilation strategy.Design: Retrospective cohort study.Setting: University-affiliated county hospital in Seattle, WA.Patients: Six-hundred and twenty patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage documented on computed tomography or angiography.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: One-hundred and seventy patients met criteria for acute lung injury (incidence, 27%; 95% confidence interval, 24-31%). On multivariate analysis, severity of illness, clinical grade of hemorrhage, packed red blood cell transfusions, and severe sepsis in the intensive care unit were independently associated with development of acute lung injury. After adjustment for important confounders, development of acute lung injury was associated with a statistically significant increase in hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.57). Acute lung injury was also independently associated with an increased intensive care unit length of stay (15%, 95% confidence interval, 5-27%). Thirty percent of patients with acute lung injury received low tidal volume ventilation. Patients receiving low tidal volume ventilation had worse oxygenation and higher positive end-expiratory pressure requirements compared with those who did not, but there were no significant differences in arterial pH or Pco2.Conclusions: Acute lung injury is common in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage and is independently associated with a worse clinical outcome. Research is needed to determine the causes of acute lung injury in this population and whether these patients are candidates for evidence-based ventilator strategies to reduce mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Low tidal volume ventilation is associated with reduced mortality in patients with acute lung injury, yet concerns exist about patient comfort and the levels of sedation and analgesia required during its use. We compared the doses and duration of sedatives and opioid analgesics in patients receiving low vs. traditional tidal volumes at our institution.Design: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.Setting: University-affiliated county hospital in Seattle, WA.Patients: Sixty-one patients with acute lung injury enrolled in the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's ARDS Network tidal volume trial.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: Thirty-three patients were randomized to the lower tidal volume arm (6 mL/kg of predicted body weight) and 28 patients were randomized to the higher tidal volume arm (12 mL/kg of predicted body weight). There were no significant differences in the percentage of study days patients received sedatives, opioids, or neuromuscular blockade. When specific study days were examined, there were no significant differences in the proportion of patients receiving benzodiazepines, propofol, haloperidol, and opioids on days 1, 2, 3, and 7 of mechanical ventilation, nor were there differences in the doses of benzodiazepines and opioids on those days.Conclusions: At our institution, low tidal volume ventilation was not associated with increased dose or duration of sedatives in patients with acute lung injury. Sedation administration should not be considered a barrier to implementing a lung-protective ventilation strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]