Combes Alain, Luyt Charles-Edouard, Trouillet Jean-Louis, Chastre Jean, Gibert Claude
Service de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Crit Care Med. 2005 Apr;33(4):705-10. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000158518.32730.c5.
To determine whether observed and predicted mortality for intensive care unit (ICU) transfer admissions is different from non-ICU transfer admissions and how that might affect ICU performance evaluation.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We retrospectively analyzed the charts of 3,416 patients admitted to our tertiary referral ICU from January 1995 to December 2001 and evaluated the effect on our performance (based on the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II risk model) of accepting patients transferred from another hospital's ICU.
During the study period, 597 patients (17%) had been transferred from a non-ICU setting in another hospital (hospital transfer) and 408 (12%) from another hospital's ICU (ICU transfer). ICU mortality and standardized mortality ratios were significantly higher for ICU-transfer patients than for hospital-transfer or directly admitted patients: 34% vs. 23% vs. 17% (p < .0001) and 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.08), 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.95), and 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.68), respectively. ICU-transfer patients had 3.6-fold longer mean ICU stays and 1.9-fold longer durations of mechanical ventilation than directly admitted patients. Hospital-transfer (odds ratio = 1.89) and ICU-transfer patients (odds ratio = 2.41) had significantly higher mortality rates, even after adjustment for case mix and disease severity. Consequently, a benchmarking program adjusting only for these latter variables, but not admission source, would penalize our ICU by 39 excess deaths per 1,000 admissions as compared with another ICU admitting no transfer patients. Finally, patients transferred from the ward of another hospital had significantly higher mortality rates (odds ratio = 1.56) as compared with patients directly admitted from the ward of our hospital, confirming the "transfer effect" for this homogeneous patients' subgroup.
Admission source remains a strong and independent predictor of ICU death, despite adjustment for case mix and disease severity at ICU admission. Specifically, accepting numerous ICU-transfer patients, for whom the probability of ICU death is the most underestimated by a system adjusting only for case mix and disease severity, can adversely affect the evaluation of referral centers' performance. Future benchmarking and profiling systems should evaluate and adequately account for the ICU-transfer factor to provide healthcare payers and consumers with more accurate and valid information on the true performance of referral centers.
确定重症监护病房(ICU)转科收治患者的观察到的死亡率和预测死亡率是否与非ICU转科收治患者不同,以及这可能如何影响ICU的绩效评估。
设计、设置和患者:我们回顾性分析了1995年1月至2001年12月期间入住我们三级转诊ICU的3416例患者的病历,并评估了接收从另一家医院ICU转来的患者对我们绩效(基于简化急性生理学评分II风险模型)的影响。
在研究期间,597例患者(17%)从另一家医院的非ICU环境中转来(医院转科),408例患者(12%)从另一家医院的ICU转来(ICU转科)。ICU转科患者的ICU死亡率和标准化死亡率显著高于医院转科患者或直接收治患者:分别为34%、23%和17%(p <.0001),以及0.95(95%置信区间,0.83 - 1.08)、0.82(95%置信区间,0.71 - 0.95)和0.62(95%置信区间,0.55 - 0.68)。ICU转科患者的平均ICU住院时间比直接收治患者长3.6倍,机械通气时间长1.9倍。即使在对病例组合和疾病严重程度进行调整后,医院转科患者(优势比 = 1.89)和ICU转科患者(优势比 = 2.41)的死亡率仍显著更高。因此,一个仅针对后述变量而非收治来源进行调整的基准化项目,与另一个不接收转科患者的ICU相比,会使我们的ICU每1000例收治患者多出现39例超额死亡。最后,与从我们医院病房直接收治的患者相比,从另一家医院病房转来的患者死亡率显著更高(优势比 = 1.56),证实了该同质患者亚组的“转科效应”。
尽管在ICU收治时对病例组合和疾病严重程度进行了调整,但收治来源仍然是ICU死亡的一个强大且独立的预测因素。具体而言,接收大量ICU转科患者会对转诊中心的绩效评估产生不利影响,因为仅针对病例组合和疾病严重程度进行调整的系统对这些患者的ICU死亡概率低估最多。未来的基准化和剖析系统应评估并充分考虑ICU转科因素,以便为医疗保健支付方和消费者提供关于转诊中心真实绩效的更准确、有效的信息。