澳大利亚人口进入 ICU 的可达性，以及 ICU 之间的可达性。

Accessibility of the Australian population to an ICU, and of ICUs to each other.

机构信息

Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

出版信息

Crit Care Resusc. 2012 Sep;14(3):177-84.

DOI:

PMID:22963211

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To use a geographic information system to qualitatively and quantitatively illustrate the geospatial relationship of the Australian population to intensive care resources.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Intensive care unit data were sourced from the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Centre for Outcome and Resource Evaluation critical care resources survey (2007-2008) and adult patient database (2002-2008), and postcode data (2006) from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Remoteness was classified within remoteness categories and the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia Plus. Distance was the difference between two postcode's centroids.

RESULTS

Ninety-one public ICUs were identified. Of these, 50 (54.9%) were in a major city, 24 (26.4%) were inner regional, 15 (16.5%) were outer regional, one (1.1%) was remote and one (1.1%) was very remote, compared with 64.2%, 20.8%, 11.7%, 1.9% and 1.4% of the population, respectively (P = 0.324). Median population distance to the closest ICU was 35.9 km and closest Level 3 ICU was 54.8 km. This varied by state/territory, ranging from 7.6 km to the closest ICU for the Australian Capital Territory to 161.7 km for Western Australia. Overall, 84.8% of the Australian population were 0-50 km from an ICU, 12.9% were 51-300km, 2.3% were 301-1500 km, and 0.01% were > 1500km. This varied among the states/territories. A Level 3 ICU was the closest ICU for 65.4% of the population, a Level 2 for 27.6% and a Level 1 for 7%. Median distance between any two ICUs was 21.1 km. Generally, the distance between Level 3 ICUs was shorter than the distance to a Level 1 or Level 2 ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

The distribution of Australian ICUs and the Australian population was similar. However, accessibility varied by state/territory.

摘要

目的

利用地理信息系统定性和定量说明澳大利亚人口与重症监护资源的空间关系。

设计、设置和参与者：重症监护病房数据来源于澳大利亚和新西兰重症监护学会中心的结果和资源评估重症监护资源调查（2007-2008 年）和成人患者数据库（2002-2008 年），以及澳大利亚统计局的邮政编码数据（2006 年）。偏远程度分为偏远程度类别和澳大利亚加的可达性/偏远程度指数。距离是两个邮政编码中心点之间的差异。

结果

确定了 91 个公共 ICU。其中，50 个（54.9%）位于主要城市，24 个（26.4%）位于内陆地区，15 个（16.5%）位于偏远地区，1 个（1.1%）位于偏远地区，1 个（1.1%）位于非常偏远地区，而人口分别为 64.2%、20.8%、11.7%、1.9%和 1.4%（P=0.324）。到最近 ICU 的中位数人口距离为 35.9 公里，到最近的 3 级 ICU 的距离为 54.8 公里。这因州/领地而异，从澳大利亚首都领地的最近 ICU 距离 7.6 公里到西澳大利亚州的 161.7 公里不等。总体而言，84.8%的澳大利亚人口距离 ICU 在 0-50 公里以内，12.9%在 51-300 公里之间，2.3%在 301-1500 公里之间，0.01%在 1500 公里以上。各州/领地之间存在差异。3 级 ICU 是人口中最近的 ICU 占 65.4%，2 级 ICU 占 27.6%，1 级 ICU 占 7%。任何两个 ICU 之间的中位数距离为 21.1 公里。一般来说，3 级 ICU 之间的距离短于 1 级或 2 级 ICU 之间的距离。