Dataset Information

Intensivists in U.S. Acute Care Hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine the total numbers of privileged and full-time equivalent intensivists in acute care hospitals with intensivists and compare the characteristics of hospitals with and without intensivists.

Design

Retrospective analysis of the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database (Fiscal Year 2015).

Setting

Two-thousand eight-hundred fourteen acute care hospitals with ICU beds.

Patients

None.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

Of the 2,814 acute care hospitals studied, 1,469 (52%) had intensivists and 1,345 (48%) had no intensivists. There were 28,808 privileged and 19,996 full-time equivalent intensivists in the 1,469 hospitals with intensivists. In these hospitals, the median (25-75th percentile) numbers of privileged and full-time equivalent intensivists were 11 (5-24) and 7 (2-17), respectively. Compared with hospitals without intensivists, hospitals with privileged intensivists were primarily located in metropolitan areas (91% vs 50%; p < 0.001) and at the aggregate level had nearly thrice the number of hospital beds (403,522 [75%] vs 137,146 [25%]), 3.6 times the number of ICU beds (74,222 [78%] vs 20,615 [22%]), and almost twice as many ICUs (3,383 [65%] vs 1,846 [35%]). At the hospital level, hospitals with privileged intensivists had significantly more hospital beds (median, 213 vs 68; p < 0.0001), ICU beds (median, 32 vs 8; p < 0.0001), a higher ratio of ICU to hospital beds (15.6% vs 12.6%; p < 0.0001), and a higher number of ICUs per hospital (2 vs 1; p < 0.0001) than hospitals without intensivists.

Conclusions

Analyzing the intensivist section of the American Hospital Association Annual Survey database is a novel approach to estimating the numbers of privileged and full-time equivalent intensivists in acute care hospitals with ICU beds in the United States. This methodology opens the door to an enhanced understanding of the current supply and distribution of intensivists as well as future research into the intensivist workforce.

SUBMITTER: Halpern NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8183575 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTelemedicine critical care is associated with improved efficiency, quality, and cost-effectiveness. As of 2010, fewer than 5% of U.S. hospitals had telemedicine critical care, and fewer than 10% of ICU beds were covered. We evaluated recent telemedicine critical care implementation and bed coverage rates in the United States and compared characteristics of hospitals with and without telemedicine critical care.DesignCross-sectional study of 2018 American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database.SettingU.S. hospitals.PatientsNone.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsWe obtained data regarding telemedicine critical care implementation, ICU capability (defined as ≥ 1 ICU bed), other hospital characteristics, and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, a measure of ICU market competition based on hospital referral regions. Among 4,396 hospitals (response rate 71%), 788 (17.9%) had telemedicine critical care, providing potential coverage to 27,624 (28% of total) ICU beds. Among 306 hospital referral regions, 197 (64%) had a respondent hospital with telemedicine critical care. Telemedicine critical care implementation was associated with being a nonprofit (odds ratio, 7.75; 95% CI, 5.18-11.58) or public (odds ratio, 4.16 [2.57-6.73]) compared with for-profit hospital; membership in a health system (odds ratio, 3.83 [2.89-5.08]; stroke telemedicine presence (odds ratio, 6.87 [5.35-8.81]); ICU capability (odds ratio, 1.68 [1.25-2.26]); and more competitive ICU markets (odds ratio per 1,000-point decrease in Herfindahl-Hirschman Index 1.11 [1.01-1.22]). Notably, rural critical access hospitals had lower odds of telemedicine critical care implementation (odds ratio, 0.49 [0.34-0.70]). Teaching status, geographic region, and rurality were not associated with telemedicine critical care implementation.ConclusionsAbout one fifth of respondent hospitals had telemedicine critical care by 2018, providing potential coverage of nearly one third of reported ICU beds. This represents a substantial increase in telemedicine critical care implementation over the last decade. Future expansion to include more rural hospitals that could benefit most may be aided by addressing hospital financial and market barriers to telemedicine critical care implementation.

Project description:Rationale: Whether critical care improvements over the last 10 years extend to all hospitals has not been described.Objectives: To examine the temporal trends of critical care outcomes in minority and non-minority-serving hospitals using an inception cohort of critically ill patients.Measurements and Main Results: Using the Philips Health Care electronic ICU Research Institute Database, we identified minority-serving hospitals as those with an African American or Hispanic ICU census more than twice its regional mean. We examined almost 1.1 million critical illness admissions among 208 ICUs from across the United States admitted between 2006 and 2016. Adjusted hospital mortality (primary) and length of hospitalization (secondary) were the main outcomes. Large pluralities of African American (25%, n = 27,242) and Hispanic individuals (48%, n = 26,743) were cared for in minority-serving hospitals, compared with only 5.2% (n = 42,941) of white individuals. Over the last 10 years, although the risk of critical illness mortality steadily decreased by 2% per year (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-0.98) in non-minority-serving hospitals, outcomes within minority-serving hospitals did not improve comparably. This disparity in temporal trends was particularly noticeable among African American individuals, where each additional calendar year was associated with a 3% (95% CI, 0.96-0.97) lower adjusted critical illness mortality within a non-minority-serving hospital, but no change within minority-serving hospitals (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01). Similarly, although ICU and hospital lengths of stay decreased by 0.08 (95% CI, -0.08 to -0.07) and 0.16 (95% CI, -0.16 to -0.15) days per additional calendar year, respectively, in non-minority-serving hospitals, there was little temporal change for African American individuals in minority-serving hospitals.Conclusions: Critically ill African American individuals are disproportionately cared for in minority-serving hospitals, which have shown significantly less improvement than non-minority-serving hospitals over the last 10 years.

Project description:To compare the prevalence, resource utilization, and mortality for pediatric severe sepsis identified using two established identification strategies.Observational cohort study from 2004 to 2012.Forty-four pediatric hospitals contributing data to the Pediatric Health Information Systems database.Children 18 years old or younger.We identified patients with severe sepsis or septic shock by using two International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modification-based coding strategies: 1) combinations of International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modification codes for infection plus organ dysfunction (combination code cohort); 2) International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modification codes for severe sepsis and septic shock (sepsis code cohort). Outcomes included prevalence of severe sepsis, as well as hospital and ICU length of stay, and mortality. Outcomes were compared between the two cohorts examining aggregate differences over the study period and trends over time. The combination code cohort identified 176,124 hospitalizations (3.1% of all hospitalizations), whereas the sepsis code cohort identified 25,236 hospitalizations (0.45%), a seven-fold difference. Between 2004 and 2012, the prevalence of sepsis increased from 3.7% to 4.4% using the combination code cohort and from 0.4% to 0.7% using the sepsis code cohort (p < 0.001 for trend in each cohort). Length of stay (hospital and ICU) and costs decreased in both cohorts over the study period (p < 0.001). Overall, hospital mortality was higher in the sepsis code cohort than the combination code cohort (21.2% [95% CI, 20.7-21.8] vs 8.2% [95% CI, 8.0-8.3]). Over the 9-year study period, there was an absolute reduction in mortality of 10.9% (p < 0.001) in the sepsis code cohort and 3.8% (p < 0.001) in the combination code cohort.Prevalence of pediatric severe sepsis increased in the studied U.S. children's hospitals over the past 9 years, whereas resource utilization and mortality decreased. Epidemiologic estimates of pediatric severe sepsis varied up to seven-fold depending on the strategy used for case ascertainment.