Implementation of a medical intensive care team in the emergency department of a tertiary medical center in the USA.

Q2 Medicine Hospital practice (1995) Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-20 DOI:10.1080/21548331.2022.2126255
Erin Tuttle, Xuan Wang, Ariel Modrykamien
{"title":"Implementation of a medical intensive care team in the emergency department of a tertiary medical center in the USA.","authors":"Erin Tuttle,&nbsp;Xuan Wang,&nbsp;Ariel Modrykamien","doi":"10.1080/21548331.2022.2126255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Critically ill patients boarding in the ED have higher mortality rates. Several strategies have been implemented to deliver care to boarding patients. Our institution opted for a strategy consisting on deploying an Intensive Care team in the ED. This article reports outcomes before-and-after implementation of that team.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>On November 2020, a Medical Intensive Care Team was deployed in the ED. The team performed consultations for ICU patients boarding in the ED. A retrospective analysis of critically ill patients arriving to the ED before-and-after team implementation was performed. Outcome data were reviewed. Direct hospitalization costs per patient, and direct costs per department were assessed. Wilcoxon rank sum and Chisq-test were utilized to compare differences pre- and post-implementation. Multivariate analyses to model outcomes toward pre- and post-implementation and other variables were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1,828 and 3,272 patients were included in the pre- and post-intervention groups. ICU LOS (days) pre- and post-intervention were 3 (1,6) and 3 (1,6), respectively (p = 0.41). ICU readmission rates were 6.7% pre-intervention and 7.4% post-intervention (p = 0.37). Total direct costs were US$ 19,928 (11,006, 37,815) and US$ 15,795 (9016, 28,993), respectively (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed no association between team deployment and ICU LOS or readmission. However, there was association between its implementation and hospitalization cost reduction per patient of US$ 7,171.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The implementation of a Medical Intensive Care team in the ED is not associated with a reduction of ICU LOS or ICU readmission. Nevertheless, its implementation is associated with a reduction of hospitalization costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":35045,"journal":{"name":"Hospital practice (1995)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital practice (1995)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.2022.2126255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Critically ill patients boarding in the ED have higher mortality rates. Several strategies have been implemented to deliver care to boarding patients. Our institution opted for a strategy consisting on deploying an Intensive Care team in the ED. This article reports outcomes before-and-after implementation of that team.

Methods: On November 2020, a Medical Intensive Care Team was deployed in the ED. The team performed consultations for ICU patients boarding in the ED. A retrospective analysis of critically ill patients arriving to the ED before-and-after team implementation was performed. Outcome data were reviewed. Direct hospitalization costs per patient, and direct costs per department were assessed. Wilcoxon rank sum and Chisq-test were utilized to compare differences pre- and post-implementation. Multivariate analyses to model outcomes toward pre- and post-implementation and other variables were performed.

Results: 1,828 and 3,272 patients were included in the pre- and post-intervention groups. ICU LOS (days) pre- and post-intervention were 3 (1,6) and 3 (1,6), respectively (p = 0.41). ICU readmission rates were 6.7% pre-intervention and 7.4% post-intervention (p = 0.37). Total direct costs were US$ 19,928 (11,006, 37,815) and US$ 15,795 (9016, 28,993), respectively (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed no association between team deployment and ICU LOS or readmission. However, there was association between its implementation and hospitalization cost reduction per patient of US$ 7,171.

Conclusion: The implementation of a Medical Intensive Care team in the ED is not associated with a reduction of ICU LOS or ICU readmission. Nevertheless, its implementation is associated with a reduction of hospitalization costs.

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
在美国三级医疗中心急诊科实施医疗重症监护小组。
目的:急诊科危重病人死亡率较高。已经实施了若干战略,为住院病人提供护理。我们的机构选择了一种策略,包括在急诊科部署一个重症监护小组。本文报告了该小组实施前后的结果。方法:2020年11月,在急诊科部署了一个医疗重症监护小组,该小组对进入急诊科的ICU患者进行了会诊,并对小组实施前后到达急诊科的危重患者进行了回顾性分析。对结局数据进行了回顾。评估每位患者的直接住院费用和每个科室的直接住院费用。采用Wilcoxon秩和及chisq检验比较实施前后的差异。对实施前和实施后以及其他变量的结果进行多变量分析。结果:干预前组和干预后组分别纳入1828例和3272例患者。干预前和干预后ICU的LOS (d)分别为3(1,6)和3 (1,6)(p = 0.41)。干预前ICU再入院率为6.7%,干预后为7.4% (p = 0.37)。总直接成本分别为19,928美元(11,006美元,37,815美元)和15,795美元(9016美元,28,993美元)(p结论:在急诊科实施医疗重症监护小组与ICU LOS或ICU再入院的减少无关。然而,它的实施与住院费用的减少有关。
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
Hospital practice (1995)
Hospital practice (1995) Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
An insight into the updated pharmacotherapy of metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) in lean individuals: a review. Chest tube size selection for pleural effusion: from the perspective of thoracic surgeons and pulmonologists. Prescription for crisis: the compounding effect of community drug shortages on Lebanon's healthcare system. Outcomes and complications of heart failure with iron deficiency anemia: a nationwide analysis. Benign acute myositis in an adult: case-based review.
×
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