Literature DB >> 9803332

The use of intensive care information systems alters outcome prediction.

R J Bosman1, H M Oudemane van Straaten, D F Zandstra.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of using an Intensive Care Information System (ICIS) on severity scores and prognostic indices: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), and Mortality Probability Models II (MPM II).
DESIGN: Prospective pilot study.
SETTING: A 20-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: 50 consecutive adult patients admitted to the ICU on a bed equipped with an ICIS.
INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND
RESULTS: In each patient all the physiologic variables, as required by the severity scores, were both manually charted and recorded by ICIS. ICIS registration resulted in the extraction of more abnormal values for all physiologic variables (except temperature): p < 0.05. Higher severity scores and mortality prediction were achieved by using ICIS charting: predicted mortality increased by 15% for APACHE II compared to manual charting, 25% for SAPS II, and 24% for MPM0. ICIS charting resulted in higher severity scores and mortality prediction for 29 of the 50 patients using APACHE II with a mean increase in mortality prediction in this subgroup of 27%. In the case of SAPS II, ICIS charting resulted in higher scores in 23 of the 50 patients and in the case of MPM0 in 13 patients, the mean increase in mortality in these subgroups being 64 and 148%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of ICIS charting to acquire the most abnormal physiologic values for severity scores and the derived prognostic indices results in a higher mortality prediction. Comparison of groups of patients and/or ICUs based on severity scores is impossible without standardization of data collection. The mortality prediction models have to be revalidated for the use of ICIS charting. While awaiting this, we suggest that every patient record in local regional, national, or international ICU databases should be marked as being recorded by manual or by ICIS charting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9803332     DOI: 10.1007/s001340050695

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intensive Care Med        ISSN: 0342-4642            Impact factor:   17.440


  17 in total

1.  A qualitative comparison of paper flowsheets vs a computer-based clinical information system.

Authors:  J Hammond; H M Johnson; R Varas; C G Ward
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  Improving the outcome and efficiency of intensive care: the impact of an intensivist.

Authors:  M M Pollack; R W Katz; U E Ruttimann; P R Getson
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 7.598

3.  Intensive Care Society's APACHE II study in Britain and Ireland--II: Outcome comparisons of intensive care units after adjustment for case mix by the American APACHE II method.

Authors:  K M Rowan; J H Kerr; E Major; K McPherson; A Short; M P Vessey
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-10-16

4.  Value and cost of teaching hospitals: a prospective, multicenter, inception cohort study.

Authors:  J E Zimmerman; S M Shortell; W A Knaus; D M Rousseau; D P Wagner; R R Gillies; E A Draper; K Devers
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 7.598

5.  Mortality Probability Models (MPM II) based on an international cohort of intensive care unit patients.

Authors:  S Lemeshow; D Teres; J Klar; J S Avrunin; S H Gehlbach; J Rapoport
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-11-24       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Reliability of human and machine measurements in patient monitoring.

Authors:  D E Taylor; J S Whamond
Journal:  Eur J Intensive Care Med       Date:  1975-05

7.  Evaluation of predictive ability of APACHE II system and hospital outcome in Canadian intensive care unit patients.

Authors:  D T Wong; S L Crofts; M Gomez; G P McGuire; R J Byrick
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  The use of intensive care unit severity scoring systems in reimbursement strategies.

Authors:  J D Lockrem; C A Sirio
Journal:  Crit Care Clin       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 3.598

9.  Intensive Care Society's Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) study in Britain and Ireland: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study comparing two methods for predicting outcome for adult intensive care patients.

Authors:  K M Rowan; J H Kerr; E Major; K McPherson; A Short; M P Vessey
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 7.598

10.  A comparison of severity of illness scoring systems for intensive care unit patients: results of a multicenter, multinational study. The European/North American Severity Study Group.

Authors:  X Castella; A Artigas; J Bion; A Kari
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 7.598

View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  The state of research on multipurpose severity of illness scoring systems: are we on target?

Authors:  G Apolone
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Mortality prediction model is preferable to APACHE.

Authors:  F Shann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-03-11

Review 3.  [Scoring systems in the intensive care unit].

Authors:  K Lewandowski; M Lewandowski
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.041

4.  Indices to quantify changes in intracranial and cerebral perfusion pressure by assessing agreement between hourly and semi-continuous recordings.

Authors:  B Venkatesh; P Garrett; D J Fraenkel; D Purdie
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2004-02-04       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  The influence of missing components of the Acute Physiology Score of APACHE III on the measurement of ICU performance.

Authors:  Bekele Afessa; Mark T Keegan; Ognjen Gajic; Rolf D Hubmayr; Steve G Peters
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Response to Girbes et al.: Investigating associations between ICU level and quality of care in the Netherlands: reporting only SMRs is not the whole story.

Authors:  Georg Heinrich Kluge; John P W Vogelaar; Emiel S Boon
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 7.  Clinical review: scoring systems in the critically ill.

Authors:  Jean-Louis Vincent; Rui Moreno
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 9.097

8.  Critical Care Nurses Inadequately Assess SAPS II Scores of Very Ill Patients in Real Life.

Authors:  Andreas Perren; Marco Previsdomini; Ilaria Perren; Paolo Merlani
Journal:  Crit Care Res Pract       Date:  2012-04-02

9.  SAPS 3--From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 2: Development of a prognostic model for hospital mortality at ICU admission.

Authors:  Rui P Moreno; Philipp G H Metnitz; Eduardo Almeida; Barbara Jordan; Peter Bauer; Ricardo Abizanda Campos; Gaetano Iapichino; David Edbrooke; Maurizia Capuzzo; Jean-Roger Le Gall
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  A computer-assisted recording, diagnosis and management of the medically ill system for use in the intensive care unit: a preliminary report.

Authors:  George John; John Victor Peter; Binila Chacko; Kishore Pichamuthu; Aparajita Rao; K Subbalakshmi; Kavitha Elizabeth George; Sawan Kumar Agarwal; S Margret Anouncia; Ebenezer Sunderraj; Arul Siromoney
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2009 Jul-Sep
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.