OBJECTIVE: To examine variability in outcome and resource use between ICUs. Secondary aims: to assess whether outcome and resource use are related to ICU structure and process, to explore factors associated with efficient resource use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study, based on the SAPS 3 database in 275 ICUs worldwide. PATIENTS: 16,560 adults. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Outcome was defined by standardized mortality rate (SMR). Standardized resource use (SRU) was calculated based on length of stay in the ICU, adjusted for severity of acute illness. Each unit was assigned to one of four groups: "most efficient" (SMR and SRU < median); "least efficient" (SMR, SRU > median); "overachieving" (low SMR, high SRU), "underachieving" (high SMR, low SRU). Univariate analysis and stepwise logistic regression were used to test for factors separating "most" from "least efficient" units. Overall median SMR was 1.00 (IQR 0.77-1.28) and SRU 1.07 (0.76-1.58). There were 91 "most efficient", 91 "least efficient", 47 "overachieving", and 46 "underachieving" ICUs. Number of physicians, of full-time specialists, and of nurses per bed, clinical rounds, availability of physicians, presence of emergency department, and geographical region were significant in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis only interprofessional rounds, emergency department, and geographical region entered the model as significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite considerable variability in outcome and resource use only few factors of ICU structure and process were associated with efficient use of ICU. This suggests that other confounding factors play an important role.
OBJECTIVE: To examine variability in outcome and resource use between ICUs. Secondary aims: to assess whether outcome and resource use are related to ICU structure and process, to explore factors associated with efficient resource use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study, based on the SAPS 3 database in 275 ICUs worldwide. PATIENTS: 16,560 adults. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Outcome was defined by standardized mortality rate (SMR). Standardized resource use (SRU) was calculated based on length of stay in the ICU, adjusted for severity of acute illness. Each unit was assigned to one of four groups: "most efficient" (SMR and SRU < median); "least efficient" (SMR, SRU > median); "overachieving" (low SMR, high SRU), "underachieving" (high SMR, low SRU). Univariate analysis and stepwise logistic regression were used to test for factors separating "most" from "least efficient" units. Overall median SMR was 1.00 (IQR 0.77-1.28) and SRU 1.07 (0.76-1.58). There were 91 "most efficient", 91 "least efficient", 47 "overachieving", and 46 "underachieving" ICUs. Number of physicians, of full-time specialists, and of nurses per bed, clinical rounds, availability of physicians, presence of emergency department, and geographical region were significant in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis only interprofessional rounds, emergency department, and geographical region entered the model as significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite considerable variability in outcome and resource use only few factors of ICU structure and process were associated with efficient use of ICU. This suggests that other confounding factors play an important role.
Authors: S S Carson; C Stocking; T Podsadecki; J Christenson; A Pohlman; S MacRae; J Jordan; H Humphrey; M Siegler; J Hall Journal: JAMA Date: 1996 Jul 24-31 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jack E Zimmerman; Andrew A Kramer; Douglas S McNair; Fern M Malila; Violet L Shaffer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Peter J Pronovost; Dale M Needham; Hugh Waters; Christian M Birkmeyer; Jonah R Calinawan; John D Birkmeyer; Todd Dorman Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: A Rhodes; R P Moreno; E Azoulay; M Capuzzo; J D Chiche; J Eddleston; R Endacott; P Ferdinande; H Flaatten; B Guidet; R Kuhlen; C León-Gil; M C Martin Delgado; P G Metnitz; M Soares; C L Sprung; J F Timsit; A Valentin Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Rodrigo Octavio Deliberato; Ary Serpa Neto; Matthieu Komorowski; David J Stone; Stephanie Q Ko; Lucas Bulgarelli; Carolina Rodrigues Ponzoni; Renato Carneiro de Freitas Chaves; Leo Anthony Celi; Alistair E W Johnson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Goran Hedenstierna; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Philipp Metnitz; Jerme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Matti Reinikainen; Sari Karlsson; Tero Varpula; Ilkka Parviainen; Esko Ruokonen; Marjut Varpula; Tero Ala-Kokko; Ville Pettilä Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-02-09 Impact factor: 17.440