Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.
Objective Hospital-level variations in structure and process may affect clinical outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs). We sought to characterize the organizational structure, processes of care, use of protocols and standardized outcomes in a large sample of U.S. ICUs. Design We surveyed 69 ICUs about organization, size, volume, staffing, processes of care, use of protocols, and annual ICU mortality. Setting ICUs participating in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study (USCIITG-CIOS). Measurements and Main Results We characterized structure and process variables across ICUs, investigated relationships between these variables and annual ICU mortality, and adjusted for illness severity using APACHE II. Ninety-four ICU directors were invited to participate in the study and 69 ICUs (73%) were enrolled, of which 25 (36%) were medical, 24 were surgical (35%) and 20 (29%) were of mixed type, and 64 (93%) were located in teaching hospitals with a median number of 5 trainees per ICU. Average annual ICU mortality was 10.8%, average APACHE II score was 19.3, 58% were closed units and 41% had a 24-hour in-house intensivist. In multivariable linear regression adjusted for APACHE II and multiple ICU structure and process factors, annual ICU mortality was lower in surgical ICUs than in medical ICUs (5.6% lower, 95% CI 2.4%–8.8%) or mixed ICUs (4.5% lower, 95% CI 0.4%–8.7%). We also found a lower annual ICU mortality among ICUs that had a daily plan of care review (5.8% lower, 95% CI 1.6%–10.0%) and a lower bed-to-nurse ratio (1.8% lower when the ratio decreased from 2:1 to 1.5:1; 95% CI 0.25%–3.4%). In contrast, 24-hour intensivist coverage (p=0.89) and closed ICU status (p=0.16) were not associated with a lower annual ICU mortality. Conclusions In a sample of 69 ICUs, a daily plan of care review and a lower bed-to-nurse ratio were both associated with a lower annual ICU mortality. In contrast to 24-hour intensivist staffing, improvement in team communication is a low-cost, process-targeted intervention strategy that may improve clinical outcomes in ICU patients.
Objective Clinical protocols may decrease unnecessary variation in care and improve compliance with desirable therapies. We evaluated whether highly protocolized intensive care units have superior patient outcomes compared with less highly protocolized intensive care units. Design Observational study in which participating intensive care units completed a general assessment and enrolled new patients one day each week. Setting and Patients 6179 critically ill patients across 59 intensive care units in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study Interventions: None Measurements and Main Results The primary exposure was the number of intensive care unit protocols; the primary outcome was hospital mortality. 5809 participants were followed prospectively and 5454 patients in 57 intensive care units had complete outcome data. The median number of protocols per intensive care unit was 19 (IQR 15 to 21.5). In single variable analyses, there were no differences in intensive care unit and hospital mortality, length of stay, use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or continuous sedation among individuals in intensive care units with a high vs. low number of protocols. The lack of association was confirmed in adjusted multivariable analysis (p=0.70). Protocol compliance with two ventilator management protocols was moderate and did not differ between intensive care units with high vs. low numbers of protocols for lung protective ventilation in ARDS (47% vs. 52%; p=0.28) and for spontaneous breathing trials (55% vs. 51%; p=0.27). Conclusions Clinical protocols are highly prevalent in United States intensive care units. The presence of a greater number of protocols was not associated with protocol compliance or patient mortality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.