Dataset Information

Outcome of cancer patients considered for intensive care unit admission in two university hospitals in the Netherlands: the danger of delayed ICU admissions and off-hour triage decisions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Very few studies assessed the association between Intensive Care Unit (ICU) triage decisions and mortality. The aim of this study was to assess whether an association could be found between 30-day mortality, and ICU admission consultation conditions and triage decisions.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in two large referral university hospitals in the Netherlands. We identified all adult cancer patients for whom ICU admission was requested from 2016 to 2019. Via a multivariable logistic regression analysis, we assessed the association between 30-day mortality, and ICU admission consultation conditions and triage decisions.

Results

Of the 780 cancer patients for whom ICU admission was requested, 332 patients (42.6%) were considered 'too well to benefit' from ICU admission, 382 (49%) patients were immediately admitted to the ICU and 66 patients (8.4%) were considered 'too sick to benefit' according to the consulting intensivist(s). The 30-day mortality in these subgroups was 30.1%, 36.9% and 81.8%, respectively. In the patient group considered 'too well to benefit', 258 patients were never admitted to the ICU and 74 patients (9.5% of the overall study population, 22.3% of the patients 'too well to benefit') were admitted to the ICU after a second ICU admission request (delayed ICU admission). Thirty-day mortality in these groups was 25.6% and 45.9%. After adjustment for confounders, ICU consultations during off-hours (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.09-2.38, p-value 0.02) and delayed ICU admission (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.00-3.33, p-value 0.048 compared to "ICU admission") were independently associated with 30-day mortality.

Conclusion

The ICU denial rate in our study was high (51%). Sixty percent of the ICU triage decisions in cancer patients were made during off-hours, and 22.3% of the patients initially considered "too well to benefit" from ICU admission were subsequently admitted to the ICU. Both decisions during off-hours and a delayed ICU admission were associated with an increased risk of death at 30 days. Our study suggests that in cancer patients, ICU triage decisions should be discussed during on-hours, and ICU admission policy should be broadened, with a lower admission threshold for critically ill cancer patients.

SUBMITTER: van der Zee EN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8357904 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIntensive care is generally regarded as expensive, and as a result beds are limited. This has raised serious questions about rationing when there are insufficient beds for all those referred. However, the evidence for the cost effectiveness of intensive care is weak and the work that does exist usually assumes that those who are not admitted do not survive, which is not always the case. Randomised studies of the effectiveness of intensive care are difficult to justify on ethical grounds; therefore, this observational study examined the cost effectiveness of ICU admission by comparing patients who were accepted into ICU after ICU triage to those who were not accepted, while attempting to adjust such comparison for confounding factors.MethodsThis multi-centre observational cohort study involved 11 hospitals in 7 EU countries and was designed to assess the cost effectiveness of admission to intensive care after ICU triage. A total of 7,659 consecutive patients referred to the intensive care unit (ICU) were divided into those accepted for admission and those not accepted. The two groups were compared in terms of cost and mortality using multilevel regression models to account for differences across centres, and after adjusting for age, Karnofsky score and indication for ICU admission. The analyses were also stratified by categories of Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II predicted mortality (< 5%, 5% to 40% and >40%). Cost effectiveness was evaluated as cost per life saved and cost per life-year saved.ResultsAdmission to ICU produced a relative reduction in mortality risk, expressed as odds ratio, of 0.70 (0.52 to 0.94) at 28 days. When stratified by predicted mortality, the odds ratio was 1.49 (0.79 to 2.81), 0.7 (0.51 to 0.97) and 0.55 (0.37 to 0.83) for <5%, 5% to 40% and >40% predicted mortality, respectively. Average cost per life saved for all patients was $103,771 (€82,358) and cost per life-year saved was $7,065 (€5,607). These figures decreased substantially for patients with predicted mortality higher than 40%, $60,046 (€47,656) and $4,088 (€3,244), respectively. Results were very similar when considering three-month mortality. Sensitivity analyses performed to assess the robustness of the results provided findings similar to the main analyses.ConclusionsNot only does ICU appear to produce an improvement in survival, but the cost per life saved falls for patients with greater severity of illness. This suggests that intensive care is similarly cost effective to other therapies that are generally regarded as essential.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of intensive care unit bed availability, distractors and choice framing on intensive care unit admission decisions.MethodsThis study was a randomized factorial trial using patient-based vignettes. The vignettes were deemed archetypical for intensive care unit admission or refusal, as judged by a group of experts. Intensive care unit physicians were randomized to 1) an increased distraction (intervention) or a control group, 2) an intensive care unit bed scarcity or nonscarcity (availability) setting, and 3) a multiple-choice or omission (status quo) vignette scenario. The primary outcome was the proportion of appropriate intensive care unit allocations, defined as concordance with the allocation decision made by the group of experts.ResultsWe analyzed 125 physicians. Overall, distractors had no impact on the outcome; however, there was a differential drop-out rate, with fewer physicians in the intervention arm completing the questionnaire. Intensive care unit bed availability was associated with an inappropriate allocation of vignettes deemed inappropriate for intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.47; 95%CI 1.19 - 5.11) but not of vignettes appropriate for intensive care unit admission. There was a significant interaction with the presence of distractors (p = 0.007), with intensive care unit bed availability being associated with increased intensive care unit admission of vignettes inappropriate for intensive care unit admission in the distractor (intervention) arm (OR = 9.82; 95%CI 2.68 - 25.93) but not in the control group (OR = 1.02; 95%CI 0.38 - 2.72). Multiple choices were associated with increased inappropriate allocation in comparison to the omission group (OR = 5.18; 95%CI 1.37 - 19.61).ConclusionIntensive care unit bed availability and cognitive biases were associated with inappropriate intensive care unit allocation decisions. These findings may have implications for intensive care unit admission policies.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:ICU admission delays can negatively affect patient outcomes, but emergency department volume and boarding times may also affect these decisions and associated patient outcomes. We sought to investigate the effect of emergency department and ICU capacity strain on ICU admission decisions and to examine the effect of emergency department boarding time of critically ill patients on in-hospital mortality. DESIGN:A retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Single academic tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS:Adult critically ill emergency department patients for whom a consult for medical ICU admission was requested, over a 21-month period. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Patient data, including severity of illness (Mortality Probability Model III on Admission), outcomes of mortality and persistent organ dysfunction, and hourly census reports for the emergency department, for all ICUs and all adult wards were compiled. A total of 854 emergency department requests for ICU admission were logged, with 455 (53.3%) as "accept" and 399 (46.7%) as "deny" cases, with median emergency department boarding times 4.2 hours (interquartile range, 2.8-6.3?hr) and 11.7 hours (3.2-20.3?hr) and similar rates of persistent organ dysfunction and/or death 41.5% and 44.6%, respectively. Those accepted were younger (mean ± SD, 61?±?17 vs 65?±?18 yr) and more severely ill (median Mortality Probability Model III on Admission score, 15.3% [7.0-29.5%] vs 13.4% [6.3-25.2%]) than those denied admission. In the multivariable model, a full medical ICU was the only hospital-level factor significantly associated with a lower probability of ICU acceptance (odds ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.81]). Using propensity score analysis to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics between those accepted or denied for ICU admission, longer emergency department boarding time after consult was associated with higher odds of mortality and persistent organ dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.77 [1.07-2.95]/log10 hour increase). CONCLUSIONS:ICU admission decisions for critically ill emergency department patients are affected by medical ICU bed availability, though higher emergency department volume and other ICU occupancy did not play a role. Prolonged emergency department boarding times were associated with worse patient outcomes, suggesting a need for improved throughput and targeted care for patients awaiting ICU admission.

Project description:BackgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) admission triage is performed routinely and is often based solely on clinical judgment, which could mask biases. A computerized algorithm to aid ICU triage decisions was developed to classify patients into the Society of Critical Care Medicine's prioritization system. In this study, we sought to evaluate the reliability and validity of this algorithm.MethodsNine senior physicians evaluated forty clinical vignettes based on real patients. The reference standard was defined as the priorities ascribed by two investigators with full access to patients' records. Agreement of algorithm-based priorities with the reference standard and with intuitive priorities provided by the physicians were evaluated. Correlations between algorithm prioritization and physicians' judgment of the appropriateness of ICU admissions in scarcity and nonscarcity settings were also evaluated. Validity was further assessed by retrospectively applying this algorithm to 603 patients with requests for ICU admission for association with clinical outcomes.ResultsAgreement between algorithm-based priorities and the reference standard was substantial, with a median ? of 0.72 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.52-0.77). Algorithm-based priorities demonstrated higher interrater reliability (overall ? 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.65; median percentage agreement 0.64, IQR 0.59-0.70) than physicians' intuitive prioritization (overall ? 0.51, 95% CI 0.47-0.55; median percentage agreement 0.49, IQR 0.44-0.56) (p = 0.001). Algorithm-based priorities were also associated with physicians' judgment of appropriateness of ICU admission (priorities 1, 2, 3, and 4 vignettes would be admitted to the last ICU bed in 83.7%, 61.2%, 45.2%, and 16.8% of the scenarios, respectively; p < 0.001) and with actual ICU admission, palliative care consultation, and hospital mortality in the retrospective cohort.ConclusionsThis ICU admission triage algorithm demonstrated good reliability and validity. However, more studies are needed to evaluate a difference in benefit of ICU admission justifying the admission of one priority stratum over the others.

Project description:BackgroundExamining the quality of life (QOL) of patients before ICU admission will allow outcome variables to be compared and analyzed in relation to it. The objective of this study was to analyze QOL of patients before admission to a surgical ICU and to study its relationship to outcome and to the baseline characteristics of the patients.MethodsAll adult patients consecutively admitted to the surgical ICU between November 2004 and April 2005, who underwent non-cardiac surgery, were enrolled in this observational and prospective study. The following patient characteristics were recorded: age, gender, body mass index, ASA physical status, type and magnitude of surgical procedure, length of stay (LOS), in ICU and in hospital, mortality, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS), history of co-morbidities and quality of life survey score (QOLSS). The relationships between QOLSS and ICU variables and outcome were evaluated. The relationship between the total QOLSS and each variable or outcome was assessed by multiple linear regression.ResultsOne hundred eighty seven patients completed the study. The preadmission QOLSS of the patients studied was 4.43 +/- 4.90; 28% of patients had a normal quality of life (0 points), 38% had between 1 and 5 points (considered mild deterioration), 21% had between 6 and 10 points (moderate deterioration), 10% had between 11 and 15 points (considered major deterioration) and 3% had more than 15 points (severe limitation of quality of life). A worse preadmission QOLSS was associated with higher SAPS II scores, with older patients (age> 65 years) and with ASA physical status (ASA III/IV). Total QOLSS was significantly worse in elderly patients and in patients with co-morbidities and in patients more severely ill at ICU admission. Patients who died in the ICU and in hospital had worse QOLSS scores compared to those who survived. However, no statistical differences in QOLSS were found in relation to longer ICU stays (ICU LOS).ConclusionPreadmission QOL correlates with age and severity of illness. Patients with co-morbidities and those who died during ICU or hospital stay had worse QOLSS scores.