The hospital burden of critical illness across global settings: a point-prevalence and cohort study in Malawi, Sri Lanka and Sweden.

Carl Otto Schell, Raphael Kayambankadzanja, Abigail Beane, Andreas Wellhagen, Chamira Kodippily, Anna Hvarfner, Grace Banda-Katha, Nalayini Jegathesan, Christoffer Hintze, Wageesha Wijesiriwardana, Martin Gerdin Warnberg, Mtisunge Kachingwe, Petronella Bjurling-Sjoberg, Annie Kalibwe Mkandawire, Hampus Sjostedt, Surenthirakumaran Rajendra, Cecilia Stalsby Lundborg, Miklos Lipcsey, Lisa Kurland, Rashan Haniffa, Tim Baker
{"title":"The hospital burden of critical illness across global settings: a point-prevalence and cohort study in Malawi, Sri Lanka and Sweden.","authors":"Carl Otto Schell, Raphael Kayambankadzanja, Abigail Beane, Andreas Wellhagen, Chamira Kodippily, Anna Hvarfner, Grace Banda-Katha, Nalayini Jegathesan, Christoffer Hintze, Wageesha Wijesiriwardana, Martin Gerdin Warnberg, Mtisunge Kachingwe, Petronella Bjurling-Sjoberg, Annie Kalibwe Mkandawire, Hampus Sjostedt, Surenthirakumaran Rajendra, Cecilia Stalsby Lundborg, Miklos Lipcsey, Lisa Kurland, Rashan Haniffa, Tim Baker","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.14.24304275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Key Points</strong>\n<strong>Question:</strong> What is the burden of critical illness in hospitals in different global settings, and where are critically ill patients being cared for? <strong>Findings:</strong> Among 3652 hospitalized patients in countries of different socio-economic levels (Malawi, Sri Lanka, and Sweden) we found a point-prevalence of critical illness of 12.0% (95% CI, 11.0-13.1), with a hospital mortality of 18.7% (95% CI, 15.3-22.6). The odds ratio of death of critically ill compared to non-critically ill patients was 7.5 (95% CI, 5.4-10.2). Of the critically ill patients 3.9 % (95% CI, 2.4-6.1) were cared for in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). <strong>Meaning:</strong> Critical illness is common in hospitals and has a high mortality. Ensuring that feasible critical care interventions are implemented throughout hospitals including in general wards where more than nine in ten critically ill patients are cared for, has potential to improve outcomes across all medical specialties. <strong>Abstract</strong>\n<strong>Importance:</strong> Large unmet needs of critical care have been identified globally, but evidence to guide policy priorities is scarce. Available studies into the burden of critical illness have important limitations. <strong>Objective:</strong> To assess the adult burden of critical illness in hospitals across global settings. <strong>Design, Setting, and Participants:</strong> This was a prospective, observational, international, hospital-based, point-prevalence and cohort study in Malawi, Sri Lanka, and Sweden. On specific days, all adult in-patients in the eight study hospitals were examined for the presence of critical illness and followed up for hospital mortality. <strong>Exposure:</strong> Patients with one or more severely deranged vital sign were classified as critically ill. <strong>Main Outcomes and Measures:</strong> The primary study outcomes were the point-prevalence of critical illness and 30-day in-hospital mortality. In addition, we assessed the proportion of critically ill patients who were cared for in Intensive Care Units (ICU)s, and the association between critical illness and 30-day in-hospital mortality. <strong>Results:</strong> Among 3652 hospitalized patients in countries of different socio-economic levels we found a point-prevalence of critical illness of 12.0% (95% CI, 11.0-13.1), with a hospital mortality of 18.7% (95% CI, 15.3-22.6). The odds ratio of death of critically ill compared to non-critically ill patients was 7.5 (95% CI, 5.4-10.2). Of the critically ill patients 3.9 % (95% CI, 2.4-6.1) were cared for in ICUs. <strong>Conclusions and Relevance:</strong> The study has revealed a substantial burden of critical illness in hospitals from different global settings. One in eight hospital in-patients were critically ill, 19% of them died in hospital, and 96% of the critically ill patients were cared for outside ICUs. Implementing feasible, low-cost, critical care in general wards and units throughout hospitals would impact all critically ill patients and has potential to improve outcomes across all acute care specialties.","PeriodicalId":501290,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.14.24304275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Key Points Question: What is the burden of critical illness in hospitals in different global settings, and where are critically ill patients being cared for? Findings: Among 3652 hospitalized patients in countries of different socio-economic levels (Malawi, Sri Lanka, and Sweden) we found a point-prevalence of critical illness of 12.0% (95% CI, 11.0-13.1), with a hospital mortality of 18.7% (95% CI, 15.3-22.6). The odds ratio of death of critically ill compared to non-critically ill patients was 7.5 (95% CI, 5.4-10.2). Of the critically ill patients 3.9 % (95% CI, 2.4-6.1) were cared for in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Meaning: Critical illness is common in hospitals and has a high mortality. Ensuring that feasible critical care interventions are implemented throughout hospitals including in general wards where more than nine in ten critically ill patients are cared for, has potential to improve outcomes across all medical specialties. Abstract Importance: Large unmet needs of critical care have been identified globally, but evidence to guide policy priorities is scarce. Available studies into the burden of critical illness have important limitations. Objective: To assess the adult burden of critical illness in hospitals across global settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prospective, observational, international, hospital-based, point-prevalence and cohort study in Malawi, Sri Lanka, and Sweden. On specific days, all adult in-patients in the eight study hospitals were examined for the presence of critical illness and followed up for hospital mortality. Exposure: Patients with one or more severely deranged vital sign were classified as critically ill. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcomes were the point-prevalence of critical illness and 30-day in-hospital mortality. In addition, we assessed the proportion of critically ill patients who were cared for in Intensive Care Units (ICU)s, and the association between critical illness and 30-day in-hospital mortality. Results: Among 3652 hospitalized patients in countries of different socio-economic levels we found a point-prevalence of critical illness of 12.0% (95% CI, 11.0-13.1), with a hospital mortality of 18.7% (95% CI, 15.3-22.6). The odds ratio of death of critically ill compared to non-critically ill patients was 7.5 (95% CI, 5.4-10.2). Of the critically ill patients 3.9 % (95% CI, 2.4-6.1) were cared for in ICUs. Conclusions and Relevance: The study has revealed a substantial burden of critical illness in hospitals from different global settings. One in eight hospital in-patients were critically ill, 19% of them died in hospital, and 96% of the critically ill patients were cared for outside ICUs. Implementing feasible, low-cost, critical care in general wards and units throughout hospitals would impact all critically ill patients and has potential to improve outcomes across all acute care specialties.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全球环境下危重病的医院负担:马拉维、斯里兰卡和瑞典的点流行率和队列研究。
要点问题:全球不同环境下医院的危重病负担是什么?研究结果:在不同社会经济水平国家(马拉维、斯里兰卡和瑞典)的 3652 名住院患者中,我们发现危重病的点流行率为 12.0%(95% CI,11.0-13.1),医院死亡率为 18.7%(95% CI,15.3-22.6)。与非危重病人相比,危重病人死亡的几率比为 7.5(95% CI,5.4-10.2)。重症患者中有 3.9%(95% CI,2.4-6.1)在重症监护室(ICU)接受治疗。这意味着什么?危重病是医院的常见病,死亡率很高。确保在整个医院实施可行的危重病护理干预措施,包括在普通病房,因为每十个危重病人中就有九个在普通病房接受护理,这有可能改善所有医学专科的治疗效果。摘要重要性:在全球范围内,危重病护理的大量需求尚未得到满足,但用于指导政策优先事项的证据却很少。关于危重病负担的现有研究有很大的局限性。目的:评估成人危重病负担:评估全球各地医院的成人危重病负担。设计、环境和参与者:这是一项在马拉维、斯里兰卡和瑞典进行的前瞻性、观察性、国际性、以医院为基础的点流行率和队列研究。在特定的日子里,对八家研究医院的所有成年住院病人进行危重症检查,并对住院死亡率进行跟踪调查。接触:有一个或多个生命体征严重失常的病人被列为危重病人。主要结果和衡量标准:主要研究结果是危重症的点流行率和 30 天院内死亡率。此外,我们还评估了在重症监护室(ICU)接受治疗的危重病人比例,以及危重病与 30 天院内死亡率之间的关系。研究结果在不同社会经济水平国家的 3652 名住院病人中,我们发现危重病的点流行率为 12.0%(95% CI,11.0-13.1),住院死亡率为 18.7%(95% CI,15.3-22.6)。与非危重病人相比,危重病人死亡的几率比为 7.5(95% CI,5.4-10.2)。重症患者中有 3.9%(95% CI,2.4-6.1)在重症监护室接受治疗。结论和相关性:这项研究揭示了全球不同环境下医院危重病人的沉重负担。每八名住院病人中就有一名危重病人,其中 19% 的病人死于医院,96% 的危重病人在重症监护室外接受治疗。在医院的普通病房和科室实施可行的、低成本的危重病护理将影响所有危重病人,并有可能改善所有急症护理专科的治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
In-hospital stay of anemic patients (70-90 g.L-1) in the ED with/without transfusion: a single-center propensity-matched study. Accuracy of the National Early Warning Score version 2 (NEWS2) in predicting need for time-critical treatment: Retrospective observational cohort study What strategies are used to select patients for direct admission under acute medicine services? A systematic review of the literature. Feasibility of mixed-reality telecollaboration to enhance pre-medical student shadowing education Evaluating the Impact of NHS Strikes on Patient Flow through Emergency Departments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1