Golestanian Ellie, Scruggs Jesse E, Gangnon Ronald E, Mak Rosa P, Wood Kenneth E
Division of Allergy and Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2007 Jun;35(6):1470-6. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000265741.16192.D9.
Mortality and length of stay are two outcome variables commonly used as benchmarks in rating the performance of medical centers. Acceptance of transfer patients has been shown to affect both outcomes and the costs of health care. Our objective was to compare observed and predicted lengths of stay, observed and predicted mortality, and resource consumption between patients directly admitted and those transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) of a large academic medical center.
Observational cohort study.
Mixed medical/surgical ICU of a university hospital.
A total of 4,569 consecutive patients admitted to a tertiary care ICU from April 1, 1997, to March 30, 2000.
None.
Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III score, actual and predicted ICU and hospital lengths of stay, actual and predicted ICU and hospital mortality, and costs per admission.
Crude comparison of directly admitted and transfer patients revealed that transfer patients had significantly higher APACHE III scores (mean, 60.5 vs. 49.7, p < .001), ICU mortality (14% vs. 8%, p < .001), and hospital mortality (22% vs. 14%, p < .001). Transfer patients also had longer ICU lengths of stay (mean, 6.0 vs. 3.8 days, p < .001) and hospital lengths of stay (mean, 20 vs. 15.9 days, p < .001). Stratified by disease severity using the APACHE III model, there was no difference in either ICU or hospital mortality between the two populations. However, in the transfer group with the lowest predicted mortality of 0-20%, ICU and hospital lengths of stay were significantly higher. In crude cost analysis, transfer patients' costs were $9,600 higher per ICU admission compared with nontransfer patients (95% confidence interval, $6,000-$13,400). Risk stratification revealed that the higher per-patient cost was entirely confined to the transfer patients with the lowest predicted mortality.
Patients transferred to a tertiary care ICU are generally more severely ill and consume more resources. However, they have similar adjusted mortality outcomes when compared with directly admitted patients. The difference in resource consumption is mainly attributable to the group of patients in the lowest predicted risk bracket.
死亡率和住院时间是常用于评估医疗中心绩效的两个结果变量。已有研究表明,接收转院患者会影响这两个结果以及医疗保健成本。我们的目的是比较直接入院患者与转入大型学术医疗中心重症监护病房(ICU)的患者的观察到的和预测的住院时间、观察到的和预测的死亡率以及资源消耗情况。
观察性队列研究。
大学医院的内科/外科混合ICU。
1997年4月1日至2000年3月30日期间连续入住三级护理ICU的4569例患者。
无。
急性生理与慢性健康状况评估(APACHE)III评分、实际和预测的ICU及住院时间、实际和预测的ICU及医院死亡率以及每次入院的费用。
直接入院患者与转院患者的粗略比较显示,转院患者的APACHE III评分显著更高(均值分别为60.5和49.7,p < 0.001),ICU死亡率更高(14%对8%,p < 0.001),医院死亡率也更高(22%对14%,p < 0.001)。转院患者的ICU住院时间也更长(均值分别为6.0天和3.8天,p < 0.001),住院时间也更长(均值分别为20天和15.9天,p < 0.001)。使用APACHE III模型按疾病严重程度分层后,两组患者的ICU或医院死亡率均无差异。然而,在预测死亡率最低为0 - 20%的转院组中,ICU和住院时间显著更长。在粗略成本分析中,转院患者每次ICU入院的费用比非转院患者高9600美元(95%置信区间为6000 - 13400美元)。风险分层显示,每位患者较高的成本完全局限于预测死亡率最低的转院患者。
转入三级护理ICU的患者通常病情更严重,消耗的资源更多。然而,与直接入院患者相比,他们的调整后死亡率结果相似。资源消耗的差异主要归因于预测风险最低的患者群体。