Aaron S Case, Chad H Hochberg, Binu Koirala, Eleni Flanagan, Souvik Chatterjee, William N Checkley, Ayse P Gurses, David N Hager
{"title":"Heterogeneity of Intermediate Care Organization Within a Single Healthcare System.","authors":"Aaron S Case, Chad H Hochberg, Binu Koirala, Eleni Flanagan, Souvik Chatterjee, William N Checkley, Ayse P Gurses, David N Hager","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intermediate care (IC) is prevalent nationwide, but little is known about how to best organize this level of care. Using a 99-item cross-sectional survey assessing four domains (hospital and physical IC features, provider and nurse staffing, monitoring, and interventions/services), we describe the organizational heterogeneity of IC within a five-hospital healthcare system. Surveys were completed by nurse managers from 12 (86%) of 14 IC settings. Six IC settings (50%) were embedded within acute care wards, four (33%) were stand-alone units, and two (17%) were embedded within an ICU. All had a nurse-to-patient ratio of 1:3, provided continuous cardiac telemetry, continuous pulse oximetry, high-flow nasal oxygen, and bedside intermittent hemodialysis. Most (> 50%) permitted arterial lines, frequent nursing assessments (every 2 hr), and noninvasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation via a tracheostomy. Vasopressors were less often permitted (< 25% of settings). Models of IC vary greatly within a single healthcare system.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":"7 1","pages":"e1201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Intermediate care (IC) is prevalent nationwide, but little is known about how to best organize this level of care. Using a 99-item cross-sectional survey assessing four domains (hospital and physical IC features, provider and nurse staffing, monitoring, and interventions/services), we describe the organizational heterogeneity of IC within a five-hospital healthcare system. Surveys were completed by nurse managers from 12 (86%) of 14 IC settings. Six IC settings (50%) were embedded within acute care wards, four (33%) were stand-alone units, and two (17%) were embedded within an ICU. All had a nurse-to-patient ratio of 1:3, provided continuous cardiac telemetry, continuous pulse oximetry, high-flow nasal oxygen, and bedside intermittent hemodialysis. Most (> 50%) permitted arterial lines, frequent nursing assessments (every 2 hr), and noninvasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation via a tracheostomy. Vasopressors were less often permitted (< 25% of settings). Models of IC vary greatly within a single healthcare system.