Literature DB >> 27057783

The Effect of Intensive Care Unit Admission Patterns on Mortality-based Critical Care Performance Measures.

Ian J Barbash1,2, Tri Q Le2,3, Francis Pike2, Amber E Barnato2,4,3, Derek C Angus2,3, Jeremy M Kahn1,2,3.   

Abstract

RATIONALE: Current mortality-based critical care performance measurement focuses on intensive care unit (ICU) admissions as a single group, conflating low-severity and high-severity ICU patients for whom performance may differ and neglecting severely ill patients treated solely on hospital wards.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship between hospital performance as measured by risk-standardized mortality for severely ill ICU patients, less severely ill ICU patients, and severely ill patients outside the ICU.
METHODS: Using a statewide, all-payer dataset from the Pennsylvania Healthcare Cost Containment Council, we analyzed discharge data for patients with nine clinical conditions with frequent ICU use. Using a validated severity-of-illness measure, we categorized hospitalized patients as either high severity (predicted probability of in-hospital death in top quartile) or low severity (all others). We then created three mutually exclusive groups: high-severity ICU admissions, low-severity ICU admissions, and high-severity ward patients. We used hierarchical logistic regression to generate hospital-specific 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates for each group and then compared hospital performance across groups using Spearman's rank correlation.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 87 hospitals with 22,734 low-severity ICU admissions (mean per hospital, 261 ± 187), 10,991 high-severity ICU admissions (mean per hospital, 126 ± 105), and 6,636 high-severity ward patients (mean per hospital, 76 ± 48). We found little correlation between hospital performance for high-severity ICU patients versus low-severity ICU patients (ρ = 0.15; P = 0.17). There were 29 hospitals (33%) that moved up or down at least two quartiles of performance across the ICU groups. There was weak correlation between hospital performance for high-severity ICU patients versus high-severity ward patients (ρ = 0.25; P = 0.02). There were 24 hospitals (28%) that moved up or down at least two quartiles of performance across the high-severity groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that perform well in caring for high-severity ICU patients do not necessarily also perform well in caring for low-severity ICU patients or high-severity ward patients, indicating that risk-standardized mortality rates for ICU admissions as a whole offer only a narrow window on a hospital's overall performance for critically ill patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  critical care; health care quality assessment; health services; intensive care; patient outcome assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27057783      PMCID: PMC5018925          DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201509-645OC

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc        ISSN: 2325-6621


  54 in total

Review 1.  Characterizing performance profiles of ICUs.

Authors:  Rui P Moreno; Peter Bauer; Philipp Gh Metnitz
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.687

2.  The effect of multidisciplinary care teams on intensive care unit mortality.

Authors:  Michelle M Kim; Amber E Barnato; Derek C Angus; Lee A Fleisher; Lee F Fleisher; Jeremy M Kahn
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-02-22

3.  Variation in ICU risk-adjusted mortality: impact of methods of assessment and potential confounders.

Authors:  Michael W Kuzniewicz; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Rondall Lane; Mitzi L Dean; Nisha G Trivedi; Deborah J Rennie; Ted Clay; Pamela L Kotler; R Adams Dudley
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2008-04-10       Impact factor: 9.410

4.  Veterans Affairs intensive care unit risk adjustment model: validation, updating, recalibration.

Authors:  Marta L Render; James Deddens; Ron Freyberg; Peter Almenoff; Alfred F Connors; Douglas Wagner; Timothy P Hofer
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 7.598

5.  The risks of risk adjustment.

Authors:  L I Iezzoni
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-11-19       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Effect of public reporting on intensive care unit discharge destination and outcomes.

Authors:  Lora A Reineck; Tri Q Le; Christopher W Seymour; Amber E Barnato; Derek C Angus; Jeremy M Kahn
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2015-01

7.  Survival of critically ill patients hospitalized in and out of intensive care.

Authors:  Elisheva Simchen; Charles L Sprung; Noya Galai; Yana Zitser-Gurevich; Yaron Bar-Lavi; Leon Levi; Fabio Zveibil; Micha Mandel; George Mnatzaganian; Nethanel Goldschmidt; Anat Ekka-Zohar; Inbal Weiss-Salz
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  Hospitals with the highest intensive care utilization provide lower quality pneumonia care to the elderly.

Authors:  Michael W Sjoding; Hallie C Prescott; Hannah Wunsch; Theodore J Iwashyna; Colin R Cooke
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  ICU occupancy and mechanical ventilator use in the United States.

Authors:  Hannah Wunsch; Jason Wagner; Maximilian Herlim; David H Chong; Andrew A Kramer; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 7.598

10.  An administrative claims model suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day mortality rates among patients with an acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Harlan M Krumholz; Yun Wang; Jennifer A Mattera; Yongfei Wang; Lein Fang Han; Melvin J Ingber; Sheila Roman; Sharon-Lise T Normand
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-03-20       Impact factor: 29.690

View more
  1 in total

1.  A scoping review of registry captured indicators for evaluating quality of critical care in ICU.

Authors:  Issrah Jawad; Sumayyah Rashan; Chathurani Sigera; Jorge Salluh; Arjen M Dondorp; Rashan Haniffa; Abi Beane
Journal:  J Intensive Care       Date:  2021-08-05
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.