Jeremy M Kahn1, Helga Brake, Kenneth P Steinberg. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA. jkahn@cceb.med.upenn.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although intensivist physician staffing is associated with improved outcomes in critical care, little is known about the mechanism leading to this observation. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between intensivist staffing and select process-based quality indicators in the intensive care unit. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study in 29 academic hospitals participating in the University HealthSystem Consortium Mechanically Ventilated Patient Bundle Benchmarking Project. PATIENTS: 861 adult patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit. RESULTS: Patient-level information on physician staffing and process-of-care quality indicators were collected on day 4 of mechanical ventilation. By day 4, 668 patients received care under a high intensity staffing model (primary intensivist care or mandatory consult) and 193 patients received care under a low intensity staffing model (optional consultation or no intensivist). Among eligible patients, those receiving care under a high intensity staffing model were more likely to receive prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17), stress ulcer prophylaxis (risk ratio 1.10, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.18), a spontaneous breathing trial (risk ratio 1.37, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.94), interruption of sedation (risk ratio 1.64, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.38) and intensive insulin treatment (risk ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.79) on day 4 of mechanical ventilation. Models accounting for clustering by hospital produced similar estimates of the staffing effect, except for prophylaxis against thrombosis and stress ulcers. CONCLUSIONS: High intensity physician staffing is associated with increased use of evidence-based quality indicators in patients receiving mechanical ventilation.
BACKGROUND: Although intensivist physician staffing is associated with improved outcomes in critical care, little is known about the mechanism leading to this observation. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between intensivist staffing and select process-based quality indicators in the intensive care unit. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study in 29 academic hospitals participating in the University HealthSystem Consortium Mechanically Ventilated Patient Bundle Benchmarking Project. PATIENTS: 861 adult patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit. RESULTS:Patient-level information on physician staffing and process-of-care quality indicators were collected on day 4 of mechanical ventilation. By day 4, 668 patients received care under a high intensity staffing model (primary intensivist care or mandatory consult) and 193 patients received care under a low intensity staffing model (optional consultation or no intensivist). Among eligible patients, those receiving care under a high intensity staffing model were more likely to receive prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17), stress ulcer prophylaxis (risk ratio 1.10, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.18), a spontaneous breathing trial (risk ratio 1.37, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.94), interruption of sedation (risk ratio 1.64, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.38) and intensive insulin treatment (risk ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.79) on day 4 of mechanical ventilation. Models accounting for clustering by hospital produced similar estimates of the staffing effect, except for prophylaxis against thrombosis and stress ulcers. CONCLUSIONS: High intensity physician staffing is associated with increased use of evidence-based quality indicators in patients receiving mechanical ventilation.
Authors: G van den Berghe; P Wouters; F Weekers; C Verwaest; F Bruyninckx; M Schetz; D Vlasselaers; P Ferdinande; P Lauwers; R Bouillon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P J Pronovost; B Weast; C G Holzmueller; B J Rosenstein; R P Kidwell; K B Haller; E R Feroli; J B Sexton; H R Rubin Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2003-12
Authors: Elizabeth K Stevenson; Amanda R Rubenstein; Gregory T Radin; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Allan J Walkey Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Meghan B Lane-Fall; Tara S Ramaswamy; Sydney E S Brown; Xu He; Jacob T Gutsche; Lee A Fleisher; Mark D Neuman Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Eduard E Vasilevskis; E Wesley Ely; Theodore Speroff; Brenda T Pun; Leanne Boehm; Robert S Dittus Journal: Chest Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Meeta Prasad Kerlin; Dylan S Small; Elizabeth Cooney; Barry D Fuchs; Lisa M Bellini; Mark E Mikkelsen; William D Schweickert; Rita N Bakhru; Nicole B Gabler; Michael O Harhay; John Hansen-Flaschen; Scott D Halpern Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245