Dataset Information

Intensivists' Direct Management without Residents May Improve the Survival Rate Compared to High-Intensity Intensivist Staffing in Academic Intensive Care Units: Retrospective and Crossover Study Design.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Medical staff members are concentrated in the intensive care unit (ICU), and medical residents are essentially needed to operate the ICU. However, the recent trend has been to restrict resident working hours. This restriction may lead to a shortage of ICU staff, and there is a chance that regional academic hospitals will face running ICUs without residents in the near future. METHODS:We performed a retrospective observational study (intensivist crossover design) of medical patients who were transferred to two ICUs from general wards between September 2017 and February 2019 at one academic hospital. We compared the ICU outcomes according to the ICU type (ICU with resident management under high-intensity intensivist staffing vs. ICU with direct management by intensivists without residents). RESULTS:Of 314 enrolled patients, 70 were primarily managed by residents, and 244 were directly managed by intensivists. The latter patients showed better ICU mortality (29.9% vs. 42.9%, P = 0.042), lower cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (10.2% vs. 21.4%, P = 0.013), lower continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) (24.2% vs. 40.0%, P = 0.009), and more advanced care planning decisions before death (87.3% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.013) than the former patients. The better ICU mortality (hazard ratio, 1.641; P = 0.035), lower CPR (odds ratio [OR], 2.891; P = 0.009), lower CRRT (OR, 2.602; P = 0.005), and more advanced care planning decisions before death (OR, 4.978; P = 0.007) were also associated with intensivist direct management in the multivariate cox and logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSION:Intensivist direct management might be associated with better ICU outcomes than resident management under the supervision of an intensivist. Further large-scale prospective randomized trials are required to draw a definitive conclusion.

SUBMITTER: Kim JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6970079 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intensivists' Direct Management without Residents May Improve the Survival Rate Compared to High-Intensity Intensivist Staffing in Academic Intensive Care Units: Retrospective and Crossover Study Design.

Kim Jin Hyoung JH Kim Jihye J Bae SooHyun S Lee Taehoon T Ahn Jong Joon JJ Kang Byung Ju BJ

Journal of Korean medical science 20200120 3

<h4>Background</h4>Medical staff members are concentrated in the intensive care unit (ICU), and medical residents are essentially needed to operate the ICU. However, the recent trend has been to restrict resident working hours. This restriction may lead to a shortage of ICU staff, and there is a chance that regional academic hospitals will face running ICUs without residents in the near future.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a retrospective observational study (intensivist crossover design) of medi ...[more]

PMID: 31950776

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntensive care medicine is a relatively young discipline that has rapidly grown into a full-fledged medical subspecialty. Intensivists are responsible for managing an ever-increasing number of patients with complex, life-threatening diseases. Several factors may influence their performance, including age, training, experience, workload, and socioeconomic context. The aim of this study was to examine individual- and work-related aspects of the Latin American intensivist workforce, mainly with academic appointments, which might influence the quality of care provided. In consequence, we conducted a cross-sectional study of intensivists at public and private academic and nonacademic Latin American intensive care units (ICUs) through a web-based electronic survey submitted by email. Questions about personal aspects, work-related topics, and general clinical workflow were incorporated.ResultsOur study comprised 735 survey respondents (53% return rate) with the following country-specific breakdown: Brazil (29%); Argentina (19%); Chile (17%); Uruguay (12%); Ecuador (9%); Mexico (7%); Colombia (5%); and Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala, and Paraguay combined (2%). Latin American intensivists were predominantly male (68%) young adults (median age, 40 [IQR, 35-48] years) with a median clinical ICU experience of 10 (IQR, 5-20) years. The median weekly workload was 60 (IQR, 47-70) h. ICU formal training was between 2 and 4 years. Only 63% of academic ICUs performed multidisciplinary rounds. Most intensivists (85%) reported adequate conditions to manage patients with septic shock in their units. Unsatisfactory conditions were attributed to insufficient technology (11%), laboratory support (5%), imaging resources (5%), and drug shortages (5%). Seventy percent of intensivists participated in research, and 54% read scientific studies regularly, whereas 32% read no more than one scientific study per month. Research grants and pharmaceutical sponsorship are unusual funding sources in Latin America. Although Latin American intensivists are mostly unsatisfied with their income (81%), only a minority (27%) considered changing to another specialty before retirement.ConclusionsLatin American intensivists constitute a predominantly young adult workforce, mostly formally trained, have a high workload, and most are interested in research. They are under important limitations owing to resource constraints and overt dissatisfaction. Latin America may be representative of other world areas with similar challenges for intensivists. Specific initiatives aimed at addressing these situations need to be devised to improve the quality of critical care delivery in Latin America.

Project description:BackgroundHospitals are increasingly adopting 24-hour intensivist physician staffing as a strategy to improve intensive care unit (ICU) outcomes. However, the degree to which nighttime intensivists are associated with improvements in the quality of ICU care is unknown.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study involving ICUs that participated in the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) clinical information system from 2009 through 2010, linking a survey of ICU staffing practices with patient-level outcomes data from adult ICU admissions. Multivariate models were used to assess the relationship between nighttime intensivist staffing and in-hospital mortality among ICU patients, with adjustment for daytime intensivist staffing, severity of illness, and case mix. We conducted a confirmatory analysis in a second, population-based cohort of hospitals in Pennsylvania from which less detailed data were available.ResultsThe analysis with the use of the APACHE database included 65,752 patients admitted to 49 ICUs in 25 hospitals. In ICUs with low-intensity daytime staffing, nighttime intensivist staffing was associated with a reduction in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio for death, 0.62; P=0.04). Among ICUs with high-intensity daytime staffing, nighttime intensivist staffing conferred no benefit with respect to risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.08; P=0.78). In the verification cohort, there was a similar relationship among daytime staffing, nighttime staffing, and in-hospital mortality. The interaction between nighttime staffing and daytime staffing was not significant (P=0.18), yet the direction of the findings were similar to those in the APACHE cohort.ConclusionsThe addition of nighttime intensivist staffing to a low-intensity daytime staffing model was associated with reduced mortality. However, a reduction in mortality was not seen in ICUs with high-intensity daytime staffing. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

Project description:BackgroundIntensivists play an essential role in improving the outcomes of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs). The transition of ICU physician staffing from low-intensity ICUs (elective intensivist or no intensivist consultation) to high-intensity ICUs (mandatory intensivist consultation or a closed ICU) improves clinical outcomes. However, whether a transition from high-intensity to low-intensity ICU staffing affects ICU outcomes and quality of care remains unknown.MethodsA retrospective observational study was conducted to examine the impact of high- versus low-intensity staffing models on all-cause mortality in a suburban secondary community hospital with 400 general beds and 8 ICU beds. The ICU was switched from a high-intensity staffing model (high-former period) to low-intensity staffing in July 2019 (low-mid period) and then back to high-intensity staffing in March 2020 (high-latter period). Patients admitted from the emergency department, general ward, or operating room after emergency surgery were enrolled in these three periods and compared, balancing the predicted mortality and covariates of the patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality analyzed using hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards regression. An interrupted time-series analysis (ITSA) was also conducted to evaluate the effects of events (level change) and time.ResultsThere were 962 eligible admissions, of which 251, 213, and 498 occurred in the high-former, low-mid, and high-latter periods, respectively. In the matched group (n = 600), the all-cause mortality rate comparing the high-former period with the low-mid period showed an HR of 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56, 1.39; p = 0.58] and that comparing the high-latter period with the low-mid period showed an HR of 0.84 [95% CI, 0.54, 1.30; p = 0.43]. The result for comparison between the three periods was p = 0.80. ITSA showed level changes of 4.05% [95% CI, -13.1, 21.2; p = 0.63] when ICU staffing changed from the high-former to the low-mid period and 1.35% [95% CI, -13.8, 16.5; p = 0.86] when ICU staffing changed from the low-mid to the high-latter period.ConclusionThere was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality among the three ICU staffing periods. This study suggests that low-intensity ICU staffing might not worsen clinical outcomes in the ICU in a medium-sized community hospital. Multiple factors, including the presence of an intensivist, other medical staff, and practical guidelines, influence the prognosis of critically ill patients.

Project description:BackgroundA large body of research suggests that hospitals with intensive care units staffed by board-certified intensivists have lower mortality rates than those that do not.ObjectiveTo determine whether hospitals can reduce their mortality by adopting an intensivist staffing model.DesignRetrospective, longitudinal study using 2003-2010 Medicare data and the Leapfrog Group Hospital surveys.Setting and patientsIn total, 2,916,801 Medicare patients at 488 US hospitals.MeasurementsWe studied 30-day and in-hospital mortality among patients with several common medical and surgical conditions. We first compared risk-adjusted mortality rates of 3 groups of hospitals: those that were intensivist staffed throughout this time period, those that were not intensivist staffed, and those that transitioned to intensivist staffing somewhere during the period. We then examined rates of mortality improvement within each of the 3 groups and used difference-in-differences techniques to assess the independent effect of intensivist staffing among the subset of hospitals that transitioned.ResultsHospitals with intensivist staffing at the beginning of our study period had lower mortality rates than those without. However, hospitals that adopted intensivist staffing during the study period did not substantially improve their mortality rates. In our difference-in-differences analysis, there was no significant independent improvement in mortality after transitioning to intensivist staffing either overall [relative risk (RR), 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.90-1.02] or in the medical (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.02) or surgical populations (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84-1.10).LimitationsRisk adjustment was based on administrative data. Categorization of exposure was by survey response at the hospital level.ConclusionsAdoption of an intensivist staffing model was not associated with improved mortality in Medicare beneficiaries. These findings suggest that the lower mortality rates previously observed at hospitals with intensivist staffing may be attributable to other factors.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare sleep, work hours, and behavioral alertness in faculty and fellows during a randomized trial of nighttime in-hospital intensivist staffing compared with a standard daytime intensivist model.DesignProspective observational study.SettingMedical ICU of a tertiary care academic medical center during a randomized controlled trial of in-hospital nighttime intensivist staffing.PatientsTwenty faculty and 13 fellows assigned to rotations in the medical ICU during 2012.InterventionsAs part of the parent study, there was weekly randomization of staffing model, stratified by 2-week faculty rotation. During the standard staffing model, there were in-hospital residents, with a fellow and faculty member available at nighttime by phone. In the intervention, there were in-hospital residents with an in-hospital nighttime intensivist. Fellows and faculty completed diaries detailing their sleep, work, and well-being; wore actigraphs; and performed psychomotor vigilance testing daily.Measurements and main resultsDaily sleep time (mean hours [SD]) was increased for fellows and faculty in the intervention versus control (6.7 [0.3] vs 6.0 [0.2]; p < 0.001 and 6.7 [0.1] vs 6.4 [0.2]; p < 0.001, respectively). In-hospital work duration did not differ between the models for fellows or faculty. Total hours of work done at home was different for both fellows and faculty (0.1 [< 0.1] intervention vs 1.0 [0.1] control; p < 0.001 and 0.2 [< 0.1] intervention vs 0.6 [0.1] control; p < 0.001, respectively). Psychomotor vigilance testing did not demonstrate any differences. Measures of well-being including physical exhaustion and alertness were improved in faculty and fellows in the intervention staffing model.ConclusionsAlthough no differences were measured in patient outcomes between the two staffing models, in-hospital nighttime intensivist staffing was associated with small increases in total sleep duration for faculty and fellows, reductions in total work hours for fellows only, and improvements in subjective well-being for both groups. Staffing models should consider how work duration, sleep, and well-being may impact burnout and sustainability.

Dataset Information

Intensivists' Direct Management without Residents May Improve the Survival Rate Compared to High-Intensity Intensivist Staffing in Academic Intensive Care Units: Retrospective and Crossover Study Design.

Publications

Intensivists' Direct Management without Residents May Improve the Survival Rate Compared to High-Intensity Intensivist Staffing in Academic Intensive Care Units: Retrospective and Crossover Study Design.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets