Dataset Information

Analysis of Benefit of Intensive Care Unit Transfer for Deteriorating Ward Patients: A Patient-Centered Approach to Clinical Evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

It is unknown which deteriorating ward patients benefit from intensive care unit (ICU) transfer.

Objectives

To use an instrumental variable (IV) method that assesses heterogeneity and to evaluate estimates of person-centered treatment effects of ICU transfer and 28-day hospital mortality by age and illness severity.

Design, setting, and participants

An analysis of a prospective cohort study from November 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. The dates of this analysis were June 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018. The setting was a multicenter study of 49 UK National Health Service hospitals. Participants were 9192 deteriorating ward patients assessed for ICU transfer (4596 matched pairs). The study matched on baseline characteristics to strengthen the IV and to balance observed confounders between the comparison groups.

Exposures

Transfer to the ICU or continued care on general wards.

Main outcomes and measures

Mortality at 28 days (primary outcome) and 90 days. To address unobserved confounding, ICU bed availability was the IV for whether or not a patient was transferred. The study used the IV approach to evaluate estimates of treatment effect of ICU transfer and mortality according to age and physiological severity alone and in combination.

Results

Both comparison groups included 4596 patients. In the group assessed with "many" ICU beds available (median, 7), 52.8% were male, and the mean (SD) age was 65.2 (17.7) years; in the group assessed with "few" ICU beds available (median, 2), 53.3% were male, and the mean (SD) age was 65.0 (17.3) years. The overall 28-day mortality estimates were 23.2% (2090 predicted deaths) if all of the matched patients were transferred vs 28.1% (2534 predicted deaths) if none of the matched patients were transferred, an estimated risk difference of -4.9% (95% CI, -26.4% to 16.6%). The estimated effects of ICU transfer differed by age and by physiological severity according to the National Early Warning Score (NEWS): the absolute risk differences in 28-day mortality after ICU transfer ranged from 7.7% (95% CI, -5.5% to 21.0%) for ages 18 to 23 years to -5.0% (95% CI -26.5% to 16.6%) for age 78 to 83 years and ranged from 3.7% (95% CI, -12.1% to 19.5%) for NEWS of 0 to -25.4% (95% CI, -50.6% to -0.2%) for NEWS of 19. The absolute risk differences for elderly patients (≥75 years) were -11.6% (95% CI, -39.0% to 15.8%) for those with high NEWS (>6), -4.8% (95% CI, -30.5% to 20.9%) for those with moderate NEWS (5-6), and -1.0% (95% CI, -24.8% to 22.8%) for those with low NEWS (<5). The corresponding estimates for subgroups of younger patients (<75 years) were -8.4% (95% CI, -31.0% to 14.1%), -2.1% (95% CI, -21.1% to 16.9%), and 1.4% (95% CI, -14.5% to 17.4%).

Conclusions and relevance

This study using a this person-centered IV approach found that the benefits of ICU care may increase among patients at high levels of baseline physiological severity across different age groups, especially among elderly patients.

SUBMITTER: Grieve R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6484590 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEngaging patients and family members as partners in research increases the relevance of study results and enhances patient-centered care; how to best engage patients and families in research is unknown.MethodsWe tested a novel research approach that engages and trains patients and family members as researchers to see if we could understand and describe the experiences of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and their families. Former patients and family members conducted focus groups and interviews with patients (n = 11) and families of surviving (n = 14) and deceased (n = 7) patients from 13 ICUs in Alberta Canada, and analyzed data using conventional content analysis. Separate blinded qualitative researchers conducted an independent analysis.ResultsParticipants described three phases in the patient/family "ICU journey"; admission to ICU, daily care in ICU, and post-ICU experience. Admission to ICU was characterized by family shock and disorientation with families needing the presence and support of a provider. Participants described five important elements of daily care: honoring the patient's voice, the need to know, decision-making, medical care, and culture in ICU. The post-ICU experience was characterized by the challenges of the transition from ICU to a hospital ward and long-term effects of critical illness. These "ICU journey" experiences were described as integral to appropriate interactions with the care team and comfort and trust in the ICU, which were perceived as essential for a community of caring. Participants provided suggestions for improvement: 1) provide a dedicated family navigator, 2) increase provider awareness of the fragility of family trust, 3) improve provider communication skills, 4) improve the transition from ICU to hospital ward, and 5) inform patients about the long-term effects of critical illness. Analyses by independent qualitative researchers identified similar themes.ConclusionsPatient and family member-led research is feasible and can identify opportunities for improving care.

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: Aortic stenosis (AS) treatments include surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Choosing between SAVR and TAVR requires patients to trade-off benefits and risks. The objective of this research was to determine which TAVR and SAVR outcomes patients consider important, collect quantitative data about how patients weigh benefits and risks, and evaluate patients' preferences for SAVR or TAVR. Methods: Patients were recruited from advocacy organization databases. Patients self-reported as being diagnosed with AS, and as either having received AS treatment or as experiencing AS-related physical activity limitations. An online adapted swing weighting (ASW) method - a pairwise comparison of attributes - was used to elicit attribute tradeoffs from 219 patients. Survey data were used to estimate patients' weights for AS treatment attributes, which were incorporated into a quantitative benefit-risk analysis (BRA) to evaluate patients' preferences for TAVR and SAVR. Results: On average, patients put greater value on attributes that favored TAVR than SAVR. Patients' valuation of the lower mortality rate, reduced procedural invasiveness, and quicker time to return to normal quality of life associated with TAVR, offset their valuation of the time over which SAVR has been proven to work. There was substantial heterogeneity in patients' preferences. This was partly explained by age, with differences in preference observed between patients <60 years to those ?60 years. A Monte Carlo Simulation found that 79.5% of patients prefer TAVR. Conclusions: Most AS patients are willing to tolerate sizable increases in clinical risk in exchange for the benefits of TAVR, resulting in a large proportion of patients preferring TAVR to SAVR. Further work should be undertaken to characterize the heterogeneity in preferences for AS treatment attributes. Shared decision-making tools based on attributes important to patients can support patients' selection of the procedure that best meets their needs.

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.