Dataset Information

Costs and expected gain in lifetime health from intensive care versus general ward care of 30,712 individual patients: a distribution-weighted cost-effectiveness analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinicians, hospital managers, policy makers, and researchers are concerned about high costs, increased demand, and variation in priorities in the intensive care unit (ICU). The objectives of this modelling study are to describe the extra costs and expected health gains associated with admission to the ICU versus the general ward for 30,712 patients and the variation in cost-effectiveness estimates among subgroups and individuals, and to perform a distribution-weighted economic evaluation incorporating extra weighting to patients with high severity of disease.

Methods

We used a decision-analytic model that estimates the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (ICER) from ICU admission compared with general ward care using Norwegian registry data from 2008 to 2010. We assigned increasing weights to health gains for those with higher severity of disease, defined as less expected lifetime health if not admitted. The study has inherent uncertainty of findings because a randomized clinical trial comparing patients admitted or rejected to the ICU has never been performed. Uncertainty is explored in probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results

The mean cost-effectiveness of ICU admission versus ward care was €11,600/QALY, with 1.6 QALYs gained and an incremental cost of €18,700 per patient. The probability (p) of cost-effectiveness was 95% at a threshold of €22,000/QALY. The mean ICER for medical admissions was €10,700/QALY (p = 97%), €12,300/QALY (p = 93%) for admissions after acute surgery, and €14,700/QALY (p = 84%) after planned surgery. For individualized ICERs, there was a 50% probability that ICU admission was cost-effective for 85% of the patients at a threshold of €64,000/QALY, leaving 15% of the admissions not cost-effective. In the distributional evaluation, 8% of all patients had distribution-weighted ICERs (higher weights to gains for more severe conditions) above €64,000/QALY. High-severity admissions gained the most, and were more cost-effective.

Conclusions

On average, ICU admission versus general ward care was cost-effective at a threshold of €22,000/QALY (p = 95%). According to the individualized cost-effectiveness information, one in six ICU admissions was not cost-effective at a threshold of €64,000/QALY. Almost half of these admissions that were not cost-effective can be regarded as acceptable when weighted by severity of disease in terms of expected lifetime health. Overall, existing ICU services represent reasonable resource use, but considerable uncertainty becomes evident when disaggregating into individualized results.

SUBMITTER: Lindemark F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5567919 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo systematically review and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in order to improve the safety and efficiency of patient handover between intensive care unit (ICU) and general ward healthcare professionals at ICU discharge.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for intervention studies with the aim to improve clinical handover between ICU and general ward healthcare professionals that had been published up to and including June 2013. The methods for article inclusion and data analysis were pre-specified and aligned with recommendations outlined in the PRISMA guideline. Two reviewers independently extracted data (study purpose, setting, population, method of sampling, sample size, intervention characteristics, outcome, and implementation activities) and assessed the quality of the included studies.ResultsFrom the 6,591 citations initially extracted from the six databases, we included 11 studies in this review. Of these, six (55 %) reported statistically significant effects. Effective interventions included liaison nurses to improve communication and coordination of care and forms to facilitate timely, complete and accurate handover information. Effective interventions resulted in improved continuity of care (e.g., reduced discharge delay) and in reduced adverse events. Inconsistent effects were observed for use of care, namely, reduction of length of stay versus increase of readmissions to higher care. No statistically significant effects were found in the reduction of mortality. The overall methodological quality of the 11 studies reviewed was relatively low, with an average score of 4.5 out of 11 points.ConclusionsThis review shows that liaison nurses and handover forms are promising interventions to improve the quality of patient handover between the ICU and general ward. More robust evidence is needed on the effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve ICU handover and supportive implementation strategies.

Project description:Background: In-hospital transfers such as from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the general internal medicine (GIM) ward place patients at risk of adverse events. A structured handover tool may improve transitions from the ICU to the GIM ward. Objective: To develop, implement, and evaluate a customized user-designed transfer tool to improve transitions from the ICU to the GIM ward. Methods: This was a pre-post intervention study at a tertiary academic hospital. We developed and implemented a user-designed, structured, handwritten ICU-to-GIM transfer tool. The tool included active medical issues, functional status, medications and medication changes, consulting services, code status, and emergency contact information. Transfer tool users included GIM physicians, ICU physicians, and critical care rapid response team nurses. An implementation audit and mixed qualitative and quantitative analysis of pre-post survey responses was used to evaluate clinician satisfaction and the perceived quality of patient transfers. Results: The pre-post survey response rate was 51.8% (99/191). Respondents included GIM residents (58.5%), ICU rapid response team physicians and nurses (24.2%), and GIM attending physicians (17.2%). Less than half of clinicians (48.8%) reported that the preintervention transfer process was adequate. Clinicians who used the transfer tool reported that the transfer process was improved (93.3% vs. 48.8%, P = 0.03). Clinician-reported understanding of medication changes in the ICU increased (69.2% vs. 29.1%, P = 0.004), as did their ability to plan for a safe hospital discharge (69.2% vs. 31.0%, P = 0.01). However, only 64.2% of audited transfers used the tool. Frequently omitted sections included home medications (missing in 83.4% of audits), new medications (33.3%), and secondary diagnosis (33.3%). Thematic analysis of free-text responses identified areas for improvement including clarifying the course of ICU events and enhancing tool usability. Conclusion: A user-designed, structured, handwritten transfer tool may improve the perceived quality of patient transfers from the ICU to the GIM wards.

Project description:BackgroundStratifying patients with sepsis was the basis of the predisposition, infection, response and organ dysfunction (PIRO) concept, an attempt to resolve the heterogeneity in treatment response. The purpose of this study is to perform an independent validation of the PIRO staging system in an international cohort and explore its utility in the identification of patients in whom time to antibiotic treatment is particularly important.MethodsProspective international cohort study, conducted over a 6-month period in five Portuguese hospitals and one Australian institution. All consecutive adult patients admitted to selected wards or the intensive care, with infections that met the CDC criteria for lower respiratory tract, urinary, intra-abdominal and bloodstream infections were included.ResultsThere were 1638 patients included in the study. Patients who died in hospital presented with a higher PIRO score (10 ± 3 vs 8 ± 4, p < 0.001). The observed mortality was 3%, 15%, 24% and 34% in stage I, II, III and IV, respectively, which was within the predicted intervals of the original model, except for stage IV patients that presented a lower mortality. The hospital survival rate was 84%. The application of the PIRO staging system to the validation cohort resulted in a positive predictive value of 97% for stage I, 91% for stage II, 85% for stage III and 66% for stage IV. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was 0.75 for the all cohort and 0.70 if only patients with bacteremia were considered. Patients in stage III and IV who did not have antibiotic therapy administered within the desired time frame had higher mortality rate than those who have timely administration of antibiotic.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first external validation of this PIRO staging system and it performed well on different patient wards within the hospital and in different types of hospitals. Future studies could apply the PIRO system to decision-making about specific therapeutic interventions and enrollment in clinical trials based on disease stage.