Search

Background Improving the cost-effectiveness of health care requires an understanding of the genesis of health care costs and in particular the sources of cost variation. Little is known about how multiple physicians, caring collaboratively for patients, contribute to costs. Objective To explore the effect of collaborative care by physicians on variation in discretionary costs in an intensive care unit (ICU) by determining the contributions of the attending intensivists and ICU fellows. Methods Prospective, observational study using a multivariable model of median discretionary costs for the first day in the ICU, adjusting for confounding variables. Analysis included 3514 patients who spent more than 2 hours in the ICU on the initial day. Impact of the physicians was assessed via variables representing the specific intensivist and ICU fellow responsible on the first ICU day and allowing for interaction terms. Results On the initial day, patients spent a median of 10.6 hours (interquartile range, 6.3-16.5) in the ICU, with median discretionary costs of $1343 (interquartile range, $788-2208). There was large variation in adjusted costs attributable to both the intensivists ($359; 95% CI, $244-$474) and the fellows ($756; 95% CI, $550- $965). The interaction terms were not significant (P = .12-.79). Conclusions In an ICU care model with intensivists and subspecialty fellows, both types of physicians contributed significantly to the observed variation in discretionary costs. However, even in the presence of a hierarchical arrangement of clinical responsibilities, the influences on costs of the 2 types of physicians were independent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lack of clarity about the exact clinical implications of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) has caused confusion that has been addressed repeatedly in the literature. To provide improved understanding about the portability of DNR and the medical care provided to DNR patients, the state of Ohio passed a Do-Not-Resuscitate Law in 1998, which clearly pointed out 2 different protocols of do-not-resuscitate: DNR comfort care (DNRCC) and DNR comfort care arrest (DNRCC-Arrest). The objective of this study was to examine the outcome of patients with the 2 different protocols of DNR orders.This is a retrospective observational study conducted in a medical intensive care unit (MICU) in a hospital located in Northeast Ohio. The medical records of the initial admissions to the MICU during data collection period were concurrently and retrospectively reviewed. The association between 2 variables was examined using Chi-squared test or Student's t-test. The outcome of DNRCC, DNRCC-Arrest, and No-DNR patients were compared using multivariate logistic regression analysis.The total of 188 DNRCC-Arrest, 88 DNRCC, and 2051 No-DNR patients were included in this study. Compared with the No-DNR patients, the DNRCC (odds ratio = 20.77, P < 0.01) and DNRCC-Arrest (odds ratio = 3.69, P < 0.01) patients were more likely to die in the MICU. Furthermore, the odds of dying during MICU stay for DNRCC patients were 7.85 times significantly higher than that for DNRCC-Arrest patients (odds ratio = 7.85, P < 0.01).Given Do-Not-Resuscitate Law in Ohio, we examined the outcome of the 2 different protocols of DNR orders, and to compare with the conventional DNR orders. Similar to conventional DNR, DNDCC and DNRCC-Arrest were both associated with the increased risk of death. Patients with DNRCC were more likely to be associated with increased risk of death than those with DNRCC-Arrest.

Objective: The State of Ohio in the United States has the legislation for two different protocols of do-not-resuscitate orders. The objective of this study was to examine the clinical/demographic factors and outcomes associated with the two different do-not-resuscitate orders., Design: Data were concurrently and retrospectively collected from August 2002 to December 2005. The clinical/demographic factors of do-not-resuscitate patients were compared with those of non-do-not-resuscitate patients, and the clinical/demographic factors of do-not-resuscitate comfort care-arrest patients were compared with those of do-not-resuscitate comfort care patients., Setting: An ICU in a university-affiliated hospital located at Northeast Ohio in the United States., Patients: A sample of 2,440 patients was collected: 389 patients were do-not-resuscitate; and 2,051 patients were non-do-not-resuscitate. Among the 389 do-not-resuscitate patients, 194 were do-not-resuscitate comfort care-arrest patients and 91 were do-not-resuscitate comfort care patients., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: The factors associated with do-not-resuscitate were older age, race and ethnicity with white race, more severe clinical illness at admission to the ICU, and longer stay before admission to the ICU. Comparing do-not-resuscitate comfort care-arrest patients with do-not-resuscitate comfort care patients, those with more severe clinical illness, longer ICU stay before making a do-not-resuscitate decision, and being cared for by only one intensivist during ICU stay were significantly associated with do-not-resuscitate comfort care decisions. For 149 do-not-resuscitate patients who eventually survived to hospital discharge and 86 do-not-resuscitate patients who eventually did not, only eight (5.4%) and 23 (26.7%) had the order written within 48 hours before the end of ICU stay, respectively., Conclusions: Our study showed that some clinical/demographic factors predicted do-not-resuscitate comfort care orders. This study also suggested that Ohio's Do-Not-Resuscitate Law, clearly indicating two different protocols of do-not-resuscitate orders, facilitated early do-not-resuscitate decision.

Background: Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) patients tend to receive less medical care after the order is written. To provide a clearer approach, the Ohio Department of Health adopted the Do-Not-Resuscitate law in 1998, indicating two distinct protocols of DNR orders that allow DNR patients to choose the medical care: DNR Comfort Care (DNRCC), implying DNRCC patients receive only comfort care after the order is written; and DNR Comfort Care-Arrest (DNRCC-Arrest), implying that DNRCC-Arrest patients are eligible to receive aggressive interventions until cardiac or respiratory arrest. The aim of this study was to examine the medical care provided to patients with these two distinct protocols of DNR orders., Methods: Data were collected from August 2002 to December 2005 at a medical intensive care unit in a university-affiliated teaching hospital. In total, 188 DNRCC-Arrest patients, 88 DNRCC patients, and 2,051 non-DNR patients were included. Propensity score matching using multivariate logistic regression was used to balance the confounding variables between the 188 DNRCC-Arrest and 2,051 non-DNR patients, and between the 88 DNRCC and 2,051 non-DNR patients. The daily cost of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, the daily cost of hospital stay, the daily discretionary cost of ICU stay, six aggressive interventions, and three comfort care measures were used to indicate the medical care patients received. The association of each continuous variable and categorical variable with having a DNR order written was analyzed using Student's t-test and the χ2 test, respectively. The six aggressive interventions and three comfort care measures performed before and after the order was initiated were compared using McNemar's test., Results: DNRCC patients received significantly fewer aggressive interventions and more comfort care after the order was initiated. By contrast, for DNRCC-Arrest patients, the six aggressive interventions provided were not significantly decreased, but the three comfort care measures were significantly increased after the order was initiated. In addition, the three medical costs were not significantly different between DNRCC and non-DNR patients, or between DNRCC-Arrest and non-DNR patients., Conclusions: When medical care provided to DNR patients is clearly indicated, healthcare professionals will provide the medical care determined by patient/surrogate decision-makers and healthcare professionals, rather than blindly decreasing medical care.

Background: Little other than subjective judgment is available to help clinicians determine when a patient should be transferred out of the intensive care unit., Objective: To assess whether remaining in the intensive care unit longer than judged to be medically necessary is associated with increased 30-day mortality., Methods: This prospective, observational cohort study was performed in a 13-bed, closed-model, adult medical intensive care unit of a county-owned, university-affiliated hospital that often has difficulty transferring patients to general care areas because of a lack of available beds. Analysis included all 2401 survivors of intensive care from the study period. Delay in discharge from the intensive care unit was defined as time elapsed between the request for transfer and the actual transfer. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of discharge delay with 30-day mortality, adjusting for demographics, comorbid conditions, type and severity of acute illness, care limitations in the unit, and other potential confounding variables. Nonlinear relationships with continuous variables were modeled with restricted cubic splines., Results: Overall, 30-day mortality was 10.1%. Mean discharge delay was 9.6 (SD, 11.7) hours; 9.9% had a discharge delay exceeding 24 hours. The relationship of 30-day mortality to discharge delay was statistically significant and U-shaped, with the nadir at 20 hours., Conclusions: These data indicate an optimal time window for patients to leave the intensive care unit, with increased mortality not only if they leave earlier but also if they leave later than this optimal timing.

Rationale: ICU-acquired paresis (ICUAP) is common in survivors of critical illness. There is significant associated morbidity, including prolonged time on the ventilator and longer hospital stay. However, it is unclear whether ICUAP is independently associated with mortality, as sicker patients are more prone and existing studies have not adjusted for this., Objectives: To test the hypothesis that ICUAP is independently associated with increased mortality. Secondarily, to determine if handgrip dynamometry is a concise measure of global strength and is independently associated with mortality., Methods: A prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted in intensive care units (ICU) of five academic medical centers. Adults requiring at least 5 days of mechanical ventilation without evidence of preexisting neuromuscular disease were followed until awakening and were then examined for strength., Measurements and Main Results: We measured global strength and handgrip dynamometry. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes were hospital and ICU-free days, ICU readmission, and recurrent respiratory failure. Subjects with ICUAP (average MRC score of < 4) had longer hospital stays and required mechanical ventilation longer. Handgrip strength was lower in subjects with ICUAP and had good test performance for diagnosing ICUAP. After adjustment for severity of illness, ICUAP was independently associated with hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 7.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-25.3; P = 0.001). Separately, handgrip strength was independently associated with hospital mortality (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.5-13.6; P = 0.007)., Conclusions: ICUAP is independently associated with increased hospital mortality. Handgrip strength is also independently associated with poor hospital outcome and may serve as a simple test to identify ICUAP. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00106665).

Rationale: Variation in practice and outcomes, not explained by patient or illness characteristics, is common in health care, including in intensive care units (ICUs)., Objective: To quantify within-ICU, between-physician variation in resource use in a single medical ICU., Methods: This was a prospective, noninterventional study in a medical ICU where nine intensivists provide care in 14-d rotations. Consecutive sample consisted of 1,184 initial patient admissions whose care was provided by a single intensivist. Multivariate models were constructed for average daily discretionary costs, ICU length of stay, and hospital mortality, adjusting for patient and illness characteristics, and workload., Measurements and Main Results: The identity of the intensivist was a significant predictor for average daily discretionary costs (p < 0.0001), but not ICU length of stay (p = 0.33) or hospital mortality (p = 0.83). The intensivists had more influence on costs than all other variables except the severity and type of acute illness. Average daily discretionary costs varied by 43% across the different intensivists, equating to a mean difference of 1,003 dollars per admission between the highest and lowest terciles of intensivists., Conclusions: There are large differences among intensivists in the amount of resources they use to manage critically ill patients. Higher resource use was not associated with lower length of stay or mortality.