1Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 2Department of Anesthesiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 3Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 4Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Crit Care Med. 2014 Jan;42(1):9-16. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a63887.
To explore variation in the use of diagnostic testing in ICUs, with emphasis on differences between teaching and nonteaching ICUs.
Retrospective review of a prospective clinical ICU database.
Five teaching and four nonteaching ICUs in Winnipeg, Canada, during 2006-2010.
All adults admitted to the nine ICUs during the study period were eligible. After excluding subgroups restricted to teaching ICUs, inter-ICU transfers, prior ICU admission within 90 days, ICU length of stay less than 12 hours, and missing death dates, 10,262 patients were evaluated.
None.
Our primary outcome variable (TotalTesting) was the cumulative number of nine common laboratory tests, three radiologic tests, and electrocardiograms performed in each ICU. We used multivariable median regression to identify factors associated with TotalTesting, including length of stay, demographics, admission details, type and severity of acute illness, and specific medical interventions. We estimated the predictive power of variables as the decline in pseudo-R2 (a goodness-of-fit measure for median regression) when omitting those variables from the model. Median (interquartile range) TotalTesting was 27 (18-49) in teaching ICUs and 20 (13-36) in nonteaching units. With multivariable adjustment, median TotalTesting was 7.1 higher (95% CI, 6.6-7.7) in teaching ICUs. The most influential variable was length of stay, accounting for almost half of the variation. ICU teaching status was the second most important factor, greater than the degree of physiologic derangement and details of medical management.
After adjustment for confounding variables, patients in teaching ICUs had slightly but significantly more diagnostic tests done than those in nonteaching ICUs. In addition to increasing costs, prior studies have shown that excessive testing can cause harm in various ways and does not improve outcomes. Interventions to reduce testing should be directed to all caregivers with responsibility for ordering diagnostic tests, in both teaching and nonteaching institutions.
探讨重症监护病房(ICU)诊断检测的使用差异,重点关注教学和非教学 ICU 之间的差异。
对前瞻性临床 ICU 数据库进行回顾性分析。
加拿大温尼伯的五所教学医院和四所非教学医院的 ICU,研究期间为 2006 年至 2010 年。
所有在研究期间入住 9 所 ICU 的成年人。排除了仅限于教学 ICU、ICU 之间转科、90 天内 ICU 入院史、入住 ICU 时间<12 小时和死亡日期缺失的亚组后,共评估了 10262 名患者。
无。
我们的主要结局变量(TotalTesting)是每个 ICU 进行的九项常规实验室检查、三项影像学检查和心电图的累积次数。我们使用多变量中位数回归来确定与 TotalTesting 相关的因素,包括住院时间、人口统计学特征、入院细节、急性疾病的类型和严重程度以及特定的医疗干预措施。我们通过从模型中排除这些变量来估计变量的预测能力,其衡量标准为伪 R2 的下降(中位数回归的拟合优度指标)。教学 ICU 中的 TotalTesting 中位数(四分位距)为 27(18-49),非教学 ICU 中为 20(13-36)。多变量调整后,教学 ICU 中的 TotalTesting 中位数高 7.1 分(95%CI,6.6-7.7)。最具影响力的变量是住院时间,占总变异的近一半。ICU 教学状态是第二重要的因素,大于生理紊乱程度和医疗管理细节。
在调整混杂变量后,教学 ICU 中的患者接受的诊断性检查略多于非教学 ICU 中的患者。除了增加成本外,先前的研究表明,过度的检测可能会以各种方式造成伤害,并且不会改善结果。应针对负责下达诊断性检测医嘱的所有医护人员采取干预措施,无论其所在的机构是否为教学医院。