Tai D Y, Goh S K, Eng P C, Wang Y T
Department of General Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
Ann Acad Med Singap. 1998 May;27(3):309-13.
We conducted this retrospective, cohort study to evaluate the quality of patient care and procedure use in the medical care unit (MICU) following reorganisation and staffing by an intensivist. Consecutive admissions to an adult MICU in a university affiliated hospital during two 3-month periods, August to October 1993 (Period 1, n = 112) and January to March 1994 (Period 2, n = 127) were analysed. In Period 1, the MICU was run under the open system in which patient care was provided by the individual attending physicians. In Period 2, a resident MICU team led by a trained intensivist took over the medical care from the primary physicians when the patients were admitted to the MICU. The intensivist also vetted MICU admission and decided on MICU discharge. In addition, there was a resident respiratory therapist to attend to ventilatory care during office hours. After office hours, the care of the MICU was delegated to the on-call team on a rotational basis among the medical departments. This was the semi-closed ICU model. The patients in the two periods were similar with respect to age, sex, race, source of admission and APACHE II scores. There was improvement in the median ICU length of stay for survivors from 3 days in Period 1, to 2 days in Period 2 (P = 0.0114). The relative risk of ICU death in Period 1 compared to Period 2 was 1.23 (P = 0.286). There was no significant difference in the use of peritoneal dialysis (5.4% versus 6.3%) and mechanical ventilation (55.4% versus 49.6%). However, utilisation of intra-arterial lines and pulmonary artery catheters increased from 0% in both Periods 1 and 2 to 23.6% and 5.5%, respectively. Reorganisation of the MICU in Period 2 resulted in reduced length of MICU stay for survivors. Hence, we believe that coverage by a dedicated ICU team and active respiratory care by a respiratory therapist during office hours were beneficial for the care of the critically ill. There was also a noticeable increase in the use of invasive monitoring.
我们开展了这项回顾性队列研究,以评估在由一名重症监护医生进行重组和人员配置后,医疗护理单元(MICU)的患者护理质量和诊疗程序使用情况。对一家大学附属医院成人MICU在两个3个月期间(1993年8月至10月,第1期,n = 112;1994年1月至3月,第2期,n = 127)的连续入院患者进行了分析。在第1期,MICU采用开放系统运行,由各主治医生提供患者护理。在第2期,当患者入住MICU时,由一名经过培训的重症监护医生带领的住院医师MICU团队从初级医生手中接管医疗护理工作。该重症监护医生还负责审核MICU的入院情况并决定患者出院。此外,有一名住院呼吸治疗师在办公时间负责通气护理。办公时间过后,MICU的护理工作轮流委托给各医疗科室的值班团队。这是半封闭式ICU模式。两个时期的患者在年龄、性别、种族、入院来源和急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统(APACHE II)评分方面相似。幸存者的ICU中位住院时间有所改善,从第1期的3天降至第2期的2天(P = 0.0114)。第1期与第2期相比,ICU死亡的相对风险为1.23(P = 0.286)。腹膜透析的使用情况(5.4%对6.3%)和机械通气的使用情况(55.4%对49.6%)没有显著差异。然而,动脉内导管和肺动脉导管的使用从第1期和第2期的均为0%分别增至23.6%和5.5%。第2期MICU的重组使幸存者的MICU住院时间缩短。因此,我们认为由专门的ICU团队提供护理以及呼吸治疗师在办公时间进行积极的呼吸护理对危重症患者的护理有益。侵入性监测的使用也有明显增加。