PURPOSE: To analyze the influence of using mortality 1, 3, and 6 months after intensive care unit (ICU) admission instead of in-hospital mortality on the quality indicator standardized mortality ratio (SMR). METHODS: A cohort study of 77,616 patients admitted to 44 Dutch mixed ICUs between 1 January 2008 and 1 July 2011. Four Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV models were customized to predict in-hospital mortality and mortality 1, 3, and 6 months after ICU admission. Models' performance, the SMR and associated SMR rank position of the ICUs were assessed by bootstrapping. RESULTS: The customized APACHE IV models can be used for prediction of in-hospital mortality as well as for mortality 1, 3, and 6 months after ICU admission. When SMR based on mortality 1, 3 or 6 months after ICU admission was used instead of in-hospital SMR, 23, 36, and 30% of the ICUs, respectively, received a significantly different SMR. The percentages of patients discharged from ICU to another medical facility outside the hospital or to home had a significant influence on the difference in SMR rank position if mortality 1 month after ICU admission was used instead of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The SMR and SMR rank position of ICUs were significantly influenced by the chosen endpoint of follow-up. Case-mix-adjusted in-hospital mortality is still influenced by discharge policies, therefore SMR based on mortality at a fixed time point after ICU admission should preferably be used as a quality indicator for benchmarking purposes.
PURPOSE: To analyze the influence of using mortality 1, 3, and 6 months after intensive care unit (ICU) admission instead of in-hospital mortality on the quality indicator standardized mortality ratio (SMR). METHODS: A cohort study of 77,616 patients admitted to 44 Dutch mixed ICUs between 1 January 2008 and 1 July 2011. Four Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV models were customized to predict in-hospital mortality and mortality 1, 3, and 6 months after ICU admission. Models' performance, the SMR and associated SMR rank position of the ICUs were assessed by bootstrapping. RESULTS: The customized APACHE IV models can be used for prediction of in-hospital mortality as well as for mortality 1, 3, and 6 months after ICU admission. When SMR based on mortality 1, 3 or 6 months after ICU admission was used instead of in-hospital SMR, 23, 36, and 30% of the ICUs, respectively, received a significantly different SMR. The percentages of patients discharged from ICU to another medical facility outside the hospital or to home had a significant influence on the difference in SMR rank position if mortality 1 month after ICU admission was used instead of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The SMR and SMR rank position of ICUs were significantly influenced by the chosen endpoint of follow-up. Case-mix-adjusted in-hospital mortality is still influenced by discharge policies, therefore SMR based on mortality at a fixed time point after ICU admission should preferably be used as a quality indicator for benchmarking purposes.
Authors: Sylvia Brinkman; Ferishta Bakhshi-Raiez; Ameen Abu-Hanna; Evert de Jonge; Nicolette F de Keizer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: W A Knaus; F E Harrell; J Lynn; L Goldman; R S Phillips; A F Connors; N V Dawson; W J Fulkerson; R M Califf; N Desbiens; P Layde; R K Oye; P E Bellamy; R B Hakim; D P Wagner Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Judith E Nelson; Kusum S Mathews; David E Weissman; Karen J Brasel; Margaret Campbell; J Randall Curtis; Jennifer A Frontera; Michelle Gabriel; Ross M Hays; Anne C Mosenthal; Colleen Mulkerin; Kathleen A Puntillo; Daniel E Ray; Stefanie P Weiss; Rick Bassett; Renee D Boss; Dana R Lustbader Journal: Chest Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: T Brinck; R Raj; M B Skrifvars; R Kivisaari; J Siironen; R Lefering; L Handolin Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Meri Poukkanen; Suvi T Vaara; Matti Reinikainen; Tuomas Selander; Sara Nisula; Sari Karlsson; Ilkka Parviainen; Juha Koskenkari; Ville Pettilä Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Anders Granholm; Anders Perner; Mette Krag; Peter Buhl Hjortrup; Nicolai Haase; Lars Broksø Holst; Søren Marker; Marie Oxenbøll Collet; Aksel Karl Georg Jensen; Morten Hylander Møller Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rahul Raj; Markus Skrifvars; Stepani Bendel; Tuomas Selander; Riku Kivisaari; Jari Siironen; Matti Reinikainen Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 9.097