Gary E Weissman1, Nicole B Gabler2, Sydney E S Brown3, Scott D Halpern4. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: shalpern@exchange.upenn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to examine the relationship between different measures of capacity strain and adherence to prophylaxis guidelines in the intensive care unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study within the Project IMPACT database. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine relationships between ICU capacity strain and appropriate usage of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEP) and stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). RESULTS: Of 776,905 patient-days eligible for VTEP, appropriate therapy was provided on 68%. Strain as measured by proportion of new admissions (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.91) and census (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.97-0.98) was associated with decreased odds of receiving VTEP. With increasing strain as measured by new admissions, the degradation of VTEP utilization was more severe in ICUs with closed (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88) than open (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.91-0.92) staffing models (interaction P<.001). Of 185425 patient-days eligible for SUP, 48% received appropriate therapy. Administration of SUP was not significantly influenced by any measure of strain. CONCLUSIONS: Rising capacity strain in the ICU reduces the odds that patients will receive appropriate VTEP but not SUP. The variability among different types of ICUs in the extent to which strain degraded VTEP use suggests opportunities for systems improvement.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to examine the relationship between different measures of capacity strain and adherence to prophylaxis guidelines in the intensive care unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study within the Project IMPACT database. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine relationships between ICU capacity strain and appropriate usage of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEP) and stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). RESULTS: Of 776,905 patient-days eligible for VTEP, appropriate therapy was provided on 68%. Strain as measured by proportion of new admissions (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.91) and census (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.97-0.98) was associated with decreased odds of receiving VTEP. With increasing strain as measured by new admissions, the degradation of VTEP utilization was more severe in ICUs with closed (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88) than open (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.91-0.92) staffing models (interaction P<.001). Of 185425 patient-days eligible for SUP, 48% received appropriate therapy. Administration of SUP was not significantly influenced by any measure of strain. CONCLUSIONS: Rising capacity strain in the ICU reduces the odds that patients will receive appropriate VTEP but not SUP. The variability among different types of ICUs in the extent to which strain degraded VTEP use suggests opportunities for systems improvement.
Authors: D J Cook; H D Fuller; G H Guyatt; J C Marshall; D Leasa; R Hall; T L Winton; F Rutledge; T J Todd; P Roy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patricia M L A van den Bemt; Roel Fijn; Peter H J van der Voort; Annet A Gossen; Toine C G Egberts; Jacobus R B J Brouwers Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: D J Cook; L E Griffith; S D Walter; G H Guyatt; M O Meade; D K Heyland; A Kirby; M Tryba Journal: Crit Care Date: 2001-10-05 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Gary E Weissman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Lyle H Ungar; Michael O Harhay; Casey S Greene; Blanca E Himes; Scott D Halpern Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Kelly C Vranas; Jennifer Y Scott; Omar Badawi; Michael O Harhay; Christopher G Slatore; Donald R Sullivan; Meeta Prasad Kerlin Journal: Chest Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Kusum S Mathews; Howard Soh; Shahzad Shaefi; Wei Wang; Sonali Bose; Steven Coca; Shruti Gupta; Salim S Hayek; Anand Srivastava; Samantha K Brenner; Jared Radbel; Adam Green; Anne Sutherland; Amanda Leonberg-Yoo; Alexandre Shehata; Edward J Schenck; Samuel A P Short; Miguel A Hernán; Lili Chan; David E Leaf Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: George L Anesi; Nicole B Gabler; Nikki L Allorto; Carel Cairns; Gary E Weissman; Rachel Kohn; Scott D Halpern; Robert D Wise Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 2.889