Project description:Rationale: A small but growing number of hospitals are experimenting with emergency department-embedded critical care units (CCUs) in an effort to improve the quality of care for critically ill patients with sepsis and acute respiratory failure (ARF).Objectives: To evaluate the potential impact of an emergency department-embedded CCU at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania among patients with sepsis and ARF admitted from the emergency department to a medical ward or intensive care unit (ICU) from January 2016 to December 2017.Methods: The exposure was eligibility for admission to the emergency department-embedded CCU, which was defined as meeting a clinical definition for sepsis or ARF and admission to the emergency department during the intervention period on a weekday. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS); secondary outcomes included total emergency department plus ICU LOS, hospital survival, direct admission to the ICU, and unplanned ICU admission. Primary interrupted time series analyses were performed using ordinary least squares regression comparing monthly means. Secondary retrospective cohort and before-after analyses used multivariable Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression.Results: In the baseline and intervention periods, 3,897 patients met the inclusion criteria for sepsis and 1,865 patients met the criteria for ARF. Among patients admitted with sepsis, opening of the emergency department-embedded CCU was not associated with hospital LOS (β = -1.82 d; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.50 to 0.87; P = 0.17 for the first month after emergency department-embedded CCU opening compared with baseline; β = -0.26 d; 95% CI, -0.58 to 0.06; P = 0.10 for subsequent months). Among patients admitted with ARF, the emergency department-embedded CCU was not associated with a significant change in hospital LOS for the first month after emergency department-embedded CCU opening (β = -3.25 d; 95% CI, -7.86 to 1.36; P = 0.15) but was associated with a 0.64 d/mo shorter hospital LOS for subsequent months (β = -0.64 d; 95% CI, -1.12 to -0.17; P = 0.01). This result persisted among higher acuity patients requiring ventilatory support but was not supported by alternative analytic approaches. Among patients admitted with sepsis who did not require mechanical ventilation or vasopressors in the emergency department, the emergency department-embedded CCU was associated with an initial 9.9% reduction in direct ICU admissions in the first month (β = -0.099; 95% CI, -0.153 to -0.044; P = 0.002), followed by a 1.1% per month increase back toward baseline in subsequent months (β = 0.011; 95% CI, 0.003-0.019; P = 0.009). This relationship was supported by alternative analytic approaches and was not seen in ARF. No associations with emergency department plus ICU LOS, hospital survival, or unplanned ICU admission were observed among patients with sepsis or ARF.Conclusions: The emergency department-embedded CCU was not associated with clinical outcomes among patients admitted with sepsis or ARF. Among less sick patients with sepsis, the emergency department-embedded CCU was initially associated with reduced rates of direct ICU admission from the emergency department. Additional research is necessary to further evaluate the impact and utility of the emergency department-embedded CCU model.
Project description:BackgroundEmergency endotracheal intubations outside the operating room (OR) are associated with high complications. We compare the outcome of emergency endotracheal intubation in the general ward, the intensive care unit (ICU) and the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed adult patients requiring emergency endotracheal intubation that called for anesthesiologists at our tertiary care institution from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. We evaluated the outcomes, including aspiration, hemodynamic collapse, pneumothorax, emergency tracheostomy, and survival to hospital discharge in the general ward, ICU, and ED.ResultsThere were 416 non-OR emergency endotracheal intubation calls for the anesthesiologist. Among these areas, the ED had the highest proportion of difficult endotracheal (DET) intubation (n = 144 [80.4%]), followed by the general ward (n = 85 [66.4%]), and then the ICU (n = 65 [59.6%]). The incidence of hemodynamic collapse was higher in the general ward (n = 44 [34.4%]) than the ICU (n = 18 [16.5%]) or the ED (n = 16 [9.0%]). We reported the survival rate of the general ward (55.5%), which was lower than the ICU (63.3%) and the ED (80.4%). Among these locations, the ED had the highest rate of neurologically intact (91%) to hospital discharge, compared to the ICU (56.6%) and the general ward (55%). As for the ED, although there was no difference in survival between non-preventive and preventive intubations, preventive intubations was associated with high neurological intact with hospital discharge.ConclusionEmergency and DET intubation in the general ward and ICU resulted in a higher incidence of hemodynamic collapse and mortality than those performed in the ED. Early calls for the anesthesiologist for DET intubation without medications in the ED resulted in a higher rate of neurologically intact survival to hospital discharge.
Project description:The number of critically ill patients has increased globally along with the rise in emergency visits. Mortality prediction for critical patients is vital for emergency care, which affects the distribution of emergency resources. Traditional scoring systems are designed for all emergency patients using a classic mathematical method, but risk factors in critically ill patients have complex interactions, so traditional scoring cannot as readily apply to them. As an accurate model for predicting the mortality of emergency department critically ill patients is lacking, this study's objective was to develop a scoring system using machine learning optimized for the unique case of critical patients in emergency departments. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a tertiary medical center in Beijing, China. Patients over 16 years old were included if they were alive when they entered the emergency department intensive care unit system from February 2015 and December 2015. Mortality up to 7 days after admission into the emergency department was considered as the primary outcome, and 1624 cases were included to derive the models. Prospective factors included previous diseases, physiologic parameters, and laboratory results. Several machine learning tools were built for 7-day mortality using these factors, for which their predictive accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) was evaluated by area under the curve (AUC). The AUCs were 0.794, 0.840, 0.849 and 0.822 respectively, for the SVM, GBDT, XGBoost and logistic regression model. In comparison with the SAPS 3 model (AUC?=?0.826), the discriminatory capability of the newer machine learning methods, XGBoost in particular, is demonstrated to be more reliable for predicting outcomes for emergency department intensive care unit patients.
Project description:ImportanceIncreased patient acuity, decreased intensive care unit (ICU) bed availability, and a shortage of intensivist physicians have led to strained ICU capacity. The resulting increase in emergency department (ED) boarding time for patients requiring ICU-level care has been associated with worse outcomes.ObjectiveTo determine the association of a novel ED-based ICU, the Emergency Critical Care Center (EC3), with 30-day mortality and inpatient ICU admission.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used electronic health records of all ED visits between September 1, 2012, and July 31, 2017, with a documented clinician encounter at a large academic medical center in the United States with approximately 75 000 adult ED visits per year. The pre-EC3 cohort included ED patients from September 2, 2012, to February 15, 2015, when the EC3 opened, and the post-EC3 cohort included ED patients from February 16, 2015, to July 31, 2017. Data analyses were conducted from March 2, 2018, to May 28, 2019.ExposuresImplementation of EC3, an ED-based ICU designed to provide rapid initiation of ICU-level care in the ED setting and seamless transition to inpatient ICUs.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were 30-day mortality among ED patients and rate of ED to ICU admission.ResultsA total of 349 310 visits from a consecutive sample of ED patients (mean [SD] age, 48.5 [19.7] years; 189 709 [54.3%] women) were examined; the pre-EC3 cohort included 168 877 visits and the post-EC3 cohort included 180 433 visits. Implementation of EC3 was associated with a statistically significant reduction in risk-adjusted 30-day mortality among all ED patients (pre-EC3, 2.13%; post-EC3, 1.83%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.90; number needed to treat, 333 patient encounters; 95% CI, 256-476). The risk-adjusted rate of ED admission to ICU decreased with implementation of EC3 (pre-EC3, 3.2%; post-EC3, 2.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.83; number needed to treat, 179 patient encounters; 95% CI, 149-217).Conclusions and relevanceImplementation of a novel ED-based ICU was associated with improved 30-day survival and reduced inpatient ICU admission. Additional research is warranted to further explore the value of this novel care delivery model in various health care systems.
Project description:ObjectiveIntensive care unit (ICU) admissions near the end of life have been associated with worse quality of life and burdensome costs. Patients may not benefit from ICU admission if appropriate end-of-life care can be delivered elsewhere. The objective of this study was to descriptively analyze patients receiving end-of-life care in an emergency department (ED)-based ICU (ED-ICU).MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of patient outcomes and resource use in adult patients receiving end-of-life care in an ED-ICU. In 2015, an "End of Life" order set was created to standardize delivery of palliative therapies and comfort measures. We identified adult patients (>18 years) receiving end-of-life care in the ED-ICU from December 2015 to March 2020 whose clinicians used the end-of-life order set.ResultsA total of 218 patients were included for analysis; 50.5% were female, and the median age was 73.6 years. The median ED-ICU length of stay was 13.3 hours (interquartile range, 7.4-20.6). Two patients (0.9%) were admitted to an inpatient ICU, 117 (53.7%) died in the ED-ICU, 77 (35.3%) were admitted to a non-intensive care inpatient service, and 22 (10.1%) were discharged from the ED-ICU.ConclusionsAn ED-ICU can be used for ED patients near the end of life. Only 0.9% were subsequently admitted to an ICU, and 10.1% were discharged from the ED-ICU. This practice may benefit patients and families by avoiding costly ICU admissions and benefit health systems by reducing ICU capacity strain.
Project description:This study aimed to determine if the risk of adverse outcomes (in-hospital and 60-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and total hospital length of stay (LOS)) was greater for medical ICU (MICU) or high dependency unit (HDU) patients indirectly admitted from the emergency department (ED) than for directly admitted patients.This study was conducted at a large public acute care hospital in Singapore.In this retrospective cohort study, hospital records of patients who were admitted directly from the ED, or initially admitted to the general wards from the ED and subsequently transferred to the MICU/HDU within 24?h, were reviewed. Patients were included if they were: (A) discharged from the MICU/HDU in 2009 and were admitted from the ED and (B) transferred to the MICU/HDU within 24?h of presentation at the ED. Data from 706 patients were analysed; 58.4% were men with a median age of 61?years.The following outcomes were compared: in-hospital mortality, 60-day mortality, LOS at the MICU/HDU, as well as total hospital LOS.Of the 706 patients, 491 (69.5%) were directly admitted to the MICU/HDU. After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, interventions at the ED and clinical parameters at the ED (heart rate, respiration, oxygen saturation, mean arterial pressure), as well as the Apache II score on arrival at the MICU/HDU, indirectly admitted patients had a higher risk of in-hospital mortality (OR=3.07, 95% CI 1.39 to 6.80), death within 60?days (OR=3.09, 95% CI 1.40 to 6.83) and risk of staying >1?day at the MICU/HDU (OR=2.54, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.36). There was no significant difference in total in-hospital LOS.Indirectly admitted MICU/HDU patients had generally poorer outcomes. As the magnitude of effect may vary across settings, context-specific studies may be useful for improving outcomes.
Project description:RATIONALE:Intensive care unit (ICU) capacity strain refers to the potential limits placed on an ICU's ability to provide high-quality care for all patients who may need it at a given time. Few studies have investigated how fluctuations in ICU capacity strain might influence care outside the ICU. OBJECTIVES:To determine whether ICU capacity strain is associated with initial level of inpatient care and outcomes for emergency department (ED) patients hospitalized for sepsis. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with sepsis admitted from the ED to a medical ward or ICU at three hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Health System between 2012 and 2015. Patients were excluded if they required life support therapies, defined as invasive or noninvasive ventilatory support or vasopressors, at the time of admission. The exposures were four measures of ICU capacity strain at the time of the ED disposition decision: ICU occupancy, ICU turnover, ICU census acuity, and ward occupancy. The primary outcome was the decision to admit to a ward or to an ICU. Secondary analyses assessed the association of ICU capacity strain with in-hospital outcomes, including mortality. RESULTS:Among 77,142 hospital admissions from the ED, 3,067 patients met the study's eligibility criteria. The ICU capacity strain metrics varied between and within study hospitals over time. In unadjusted analyses, ICU occupancy, ICU turnover, ICU census acuity, and ward occupancy were all negatively associated with ICU admission. In the fully adjusted model including patient-level covariates, only ICU occupancy remained associated with ICU admission (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.96; P?=?0.005), such that a 10% increase in ICU occupancy (e.g., one additional patient in a 10-bed ICU) was associated with a 13% decrease in the odds of ICU admission. Among the subset of patients admitted initially from the ED to a medical ward, ICU occupancy at the time of admission was associated with increased odds of hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.14; P?=?0.001). CONCLUSIONS:The odds that patients in the ED with sepsis who do not require life support therapies will be admitted to the ICU are reduced when those ICUs experience high occupancy but not high levels of other previously explored measures of capacity strain. Patients with sepsis admitted to the wards during times of high ICU occupancy had increased odds of hospital mortality.
Project description:In the emergency department (ED), health care providers miss delirium approximately 75% of the time, because they do not routinely screen for this syndrome. The Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is a brief (<1 minute) delirium assessment that may be feasible for use in the ED. The study objective was to determine its validity and reliability in older ED patients.In this prospective observational cohort study, patients aged 65 years or older were enrolled at an academic, tertiary care ED from July 2009 to February 2012. An emergency physician (EP) and research assistants (RAs) performed the CAM-ICU. The reference standard for delirium was a comprehensive (~30 minutes) psychiatrist assessment using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria. All assessments were blinded to each other and were conducted within 3 hours. Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios were calculated for both the EP and the RAs using the psychiatrist's assessment as the reference standard. Kappa values between the EP and RAs were also calculated to measure reliability.Of 406 patients enrolled, 50 (12.3%) had delirium. The median age was 73.5 years old (interquartile range [IQR] = 69 to 80 years), 202 (49.8%) were female, and 57 (14.0%) were nonwhite. The CAM-ICU's sensitivities were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 58.3% to 82.5%) and 68.0% (95% CI = 54.2% to 79.2%) in the EP and RAs, respectively. The CAM-ICU's specificity was 98.6% (95% CI = 96.8% to 99.4%) for both raters. The negative likelihood ratios (LR-) were 0.28 (95% CI = 0.18 to 0.44) and 0.32 (95% CI = 0.22 to 0.49) in the EP and RAs, respectively. The positive likelihood ratios (LR+) were 51.3 (95% CI = 21.1 to 124.5) and 48.4 (95% CI = 19.9 to 118.0), respectively. The kappa between the EP and RAs was 0.92 (95% CI = 0.85 to 0.98), indicating excellent interobserver reliability.In older ED patients, the CAM-ICU is highly specific, and a positive test is nearly diagnostic for delirium when used by both the EP and RAs. However, the CAM-ICU's sensitivity was modest, and a negative test decreased the likelihood of delirium by a small amount. The consequences of a false-negative CAM-ICU are unknown and deserve further study.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Syncope is common among emergency department (ED) patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and indicates a higher acuity and worse prognosis than in patients without syncope. Whether presyncope carries the same prognostic implications has not been established. We compared incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission in three groups of ED PE patients: those with presyncope; syncope; and neither. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study included all adults with acute, objectively confirmed PE in 21 community EDs from January 2013-April 2015. We combined electronic health record extraction with manual chart abstraction. We used chi-square test for univariate comparisons and performed multivariate analysis to evaluate associations between presyncope or syncope and ICU admission from the ED, reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS:Among 2996 PE patients, 82 (2.7%) had presyncope and 109 (3.6%) had syncope. ICU admission was similar between groups (presyncope 18.3% vs syncope 25.7%) and different than their non-syncope counterparts (either 22.5% vs neither 4.7%; p<0.0001). On multivariate analysis, both presyncope and syncope were independently associated with ICU admission, controlling for demographics, higher-risk PE Severity Index (PESI) class, ventilatory support, proximal clot location, and submassive and massive PE classification: presyncope, aOR 2.79 (95% CI, 1.40, 5.56); syncope, aOR 4.44 (95% CI 2.52, 7.80). These associations were only minimally affected when excluding massive PE from the model. There was no significant interaction between either syncope or presyncope and PESI, submassive or massive classification in predicting ICU admission. CONCLUSION:Presyncope appears to carry similar strength of association with ICU admission as syncope in ED patients with acute PE. If this is confirmed, clinicians evaluating patients with acute PE may benefit from including presyncope in their calculus of risk assessment and site-of-care decision-making.