Mazer C D, Byrick R J, Sibbald W J, Chovaz P M, Goodman S J, Girotti M J, Hall J K, Pagliarello J
Department of Anaesthesia, University of Toronto St. Michael's Hospital, Ontario.
Crit Care Med. 1993 Jun;21(6):851-9. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199306000-00012.
To describe patterns of critical care services used after cardiac surgery and to evaluate whether variations in the process of care influence outcome.
Multicenter, prospective study.
A convenience sample of four cardiac surgical units: three in university-affiliated (teaching) hospitals and one in a nonteaching regional referral center.
A "consecutive sample" of 335 patients after cardiac surgery in four hospitals.
Data were collected regarding all cardiac surgery patients admitted to the critical care units in the four test hospitals.
The critical care unit and hospital lengths of stay and survival were followed. The Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) was used to assess the intensive care unit (ICU) interventions used during the first 24 hrs in the ICU and for the final 24 hrs before discharge from the ICU. The severity of illness on admission was assessed using the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring system. For patients having similar procedures (e.g., aortocoronary bypass and nonaortocoronary bypass procedures) and with similar outcome (mortality/total hospital length of stay), we found significant differences in the pattern of ICU resource utilization among hospitals. Significant (p < .05) differences in unit length of stay were related to varying factors in different hospitals. In hospital unit A, the type of procedure and preoperative chronic health status influenced unit length of stay (aortocoronary bypass 2.8 +/- 1.7 days; nonaortocoronary bypass 8.7 +/- 8.9 days) because length of stay was different for differing procedure groups. In hospital unit B, the critical care management system and lack of step-down (intermediate care) unit availability resulted in an increased unit length of stay for aortocoronary bypass patients (5.1 +/- 4.5 days) as compared with the other units (mean ICU lengths of stay of 2.8, 2.3, and 3.0 days, respectively). Unit B kept patients for monitoring purposes and had a reduced need for critical care nursing on the day of discharge (TISS = 7.5 +/- 5.5) as compared with the other units (mean TISS scores of 27.4, 23.2, and 21.5).
Significant differences exist among hospitals in the same healthcare system in the utilization of critical care services for cardiac surgery. In spite of these differences, for similar patient "input," the outcome (mortality and hospital lengths of stay) appeared similar. Assessments of utilization of critical care must focus on more detailed specific issues than unit length of stay, and must include factors such as availability of intermediate care areas, the unit management system, chronic health status, and the operative procedures performed, if a utilization management process is to effect improved resource use in critical care.
描述心脏手术后使用的重症监护服务模式,并评估护理过程中的差异是否会影响治疗结果。
多中心前瞻性研究。
四个心脏外科单元的便利样本:三个位于大学附属医院(教学医院),一个位于非教学区域转诊中心。
四家医院335例心脏手术后患者的“连续样本”。
收集了四家试验医院重症监护病房收治的所有心脏手术患者的数据。
记录重症监护病房和医院的住院时间及生存率。采用治疗干预评分系统(TISS)评估重症监护病房(ICU)最初24小时及从ICU出院前最后24小时内使用的干预措施。采用急性生理学与慢性健康状况评价(APACHE)评分系统评估入院时的疾病严重程度。对于接受类似手术(如主动脉冠状动脉搭桥术和非主动脉冠状动脉搭桥术)且预后相似(死亡率/总住院时间)的患者,我们发现不同医院间ICU资源利用模式存在显著差异。住院时间的显著差异(p <.05)与不同医院的多种因素有关。在A医院,手术类型和术前慢性健康状况影响住院时间(主动脉冠状动脉搭桥术2.8±1.7天;非主动脉冠状动脉搭桥术8.7±8.9天),因为不同手术组的住院时间不同。在B医院,重症监护管理系统以及缺乏降级(中级护理)单元导致主动脉冠状动脉搭桥术患者的住院时间增加(5.1±4.5天),而其他单元的平均ICU住院时间分别为2.8天、2.3天和3.0天。与其他单元相比(平均TISS评分为27.4、23.2和21.5),B医院为监测目的而留观患者,出院当天对重症护理的需求减少(TISS = 7.5±5.5)。
同一医疗系统内不同医院在心脏手术重症监护服务的利用方面存在显著差异。尽管存在这些差异,但对于类似的患者“输入”,治疗结果(死亡率和住院时间)似乎相似。如果要通过利用管理过程改善重症监护中的资源使用,对重症监护利用情况的评估必须关注比住院时间更详细的具体问题,并且必须包括诸如中级护理区域的可用性、单元管理系统、慢性健康状况以及所实施的手术操作等因素。