Dataset Information

[Management of critically ill nontrauma patients in a nonuniversity emergency department].

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Today there exists only limited knowledge regarding the care of critically ill nontrauma (CINT) patients in the resuscitation room (RR) in Germany. The goal of this observational study was to describe the management of CINT patients in the RR of a nonuniversity emergency department.

Methods

Data of adult nontrauma patients in the RR were prospectively collected in this study from 26 January 2019 to 18 May 2021 using the OBSERvE‑2 evaluation protocol.

Results

In all, 213 patients were included in the study (age: 70 ± 15 years, 55% male; admission to the RR by emergency medical service 93%). 28% were brought in after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Leading admission causes were C (47%) and B problems (39%). Diagnoses at the end of RR treatment were 30% pulmonary and 26% cardiovascular diseases without myocardial infarction as well as pulmonary embolism (8% and 5%, respectively). Measures performed were airway protection (20%), invasive (46%) and noninvasive ventilation (25%), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (13%), catecholamine therapy (34%), emergency ultrasound (62%). The initial treatment lasted for 41 ± 22 min. Computed tomography was subsequently performed in 51%. On average 4-5 persons were involved in the treatment during the RR period. In total, 9% of the patients died during RR treatment and 40% in the hospital.

Conclusion

Patients in a nonuniversity nontrauma RR are resource-intensive and have a high in-hospital lethality. RR care can be completed within 60 min. In order to achieve better comparability between patient populations of different locations, it is necessary to uniformly define admission criteria for the nontrauma resuscitation room.

SUBMITTER: Wasser C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9045234 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEmergency department boarding is the practice of caring for admitted patients in the emergency department after hospital admission, and boarding has been a growing problem in the United States. Boarding of the critically ill has achieved specific attention because of its association with poor clinical outcomes. Accordingly, the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians convened a Task Force to understand the implications of emergency department boarding of the critically ill. The objective of this article is to review the U.S. literature on (1) the frequency of emergency department boarding among the critically ill, (2) the outcomes associated with critical care patient boarding, and (3) local strategies developed to mitigate the impact of emergency department critical care boarding on patient outcomes.Data sources and study selectionReview article.Data extraction and data synthesisEmergency department-based boarding of the critically ill patient is common, but no nationally representative frequency estimates has been reported. Boarding literature is limited by variation in the definitions used for boarding and variation in the facilities studied (boarding ranges from 2% to 88% of ICU admissions). Prolonged boarding in the emergency department has been associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation, longer ICU and hospital length of stay, and higher mortality. Health systems have developed multiple mitigation strategies to address emergency department boarding of critically ill patients, including emergency department-based interventions, hospital-based interventions, and emergency department-based resuscitation care units.ConclusionsEmergency department boarding of critically ill patients was common and was associated with worse clinical outcomes. Health systems have generated a number of strategies to mitigate these effects. A definition for emergency department boarding is proposed. Future work should establish formal criteria for analysis and benchmarking of emergency department-based boarding overall, with subsequent efforts focused on developing and reporting innovative strategies that improve clinical outcomes of critically ill patients boarded in the emergency department.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To measure effects of ED crowding on lung-protective ventilation (LPV) utilization in critically ill ED patients. METHODS:This is a retrospective cohort study of adult mechanically ventilated ED patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU), over a 3.5-year period at a single academic tertiary care hospital. Clinical data, including reason for intubation, severity of illness (MPM0-III), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) risk score (EDLIPS), and ventilator settings were extracted via electronic query of electronic health record and standardized chart abstraction. Crowding metrics were obtained at 5-min intervals and averaged over the ED stay, stratified by acuity and disposition. Multivariate logistic regression was used to predict likelihood of LPV prior to ED departure. RESULTS:Mechanical ventilation was used in 446 patients for a median ED duration of 3.7?h (interquartile ratio, IQR, 2.3, 5.6). Mean MPM0-III score was 32.5?±?22.7, with high risk for ARDS (EDLIPS ?5) seen in 373 (82%) patients. Initial and final ED ventilator settings differed in 134 (30.0%) patients, of which only 47 (35.1%) involved tidal volume changes. Higher percentages of active ED patients (workup in-progress) and those requiring eventual admission were associated with lower odds of LPV utilization by ED departure (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.94-1.00; OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.94-1.00, respectively). In periods of high volume, ventilator adjustments to settings other than the tidal volume were associated with higher odds of LPV utilization. Reason for intubation, MPM0-III, and EDLIPS were not associated with LPV utilization, with no interactions detected in times of crowding. CONCLUSIONS:ED patients remain on suboptimal tidal volume settings with infrequent ventilator adjustments during the ED stay. Hospitals should focus on both systemic factors and bedside physician and/or respiratory therapist interventions to increase LPV utilization in times of ED boarding and crowding for all patients.

Project description:Study objectiveTriage quickly identifies critically ill patients, facilitating timely interventions. Many emergency departments (EDs) use emergency severity index (ESI) or abnormal vital sign triggers to guide triage. However, both use fixed thresholds, and false activations are costly. Prior approaches using machinelearning have relied on information that is often unavailable during the triage process. We examined whether deep-learning approaches could identify critically ill patients only using data immediately available at triage.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study at an urban tertiary care center, from January 1, 2012-January 1, 2020. De-identified triage information included structured (age, sex, initial vital signs) and textual (chief complaint) data, with critical illness (mortality or ICU admission within 24 hours) as the outcome. Four progressively complex deep-learning models were trained and applied to triage information from all patients. We compared the accuracy of the models against ESI as the standard diagnostic test, using area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC).ResultsA total of 445,925 patients were included, with 60,901 (13.7%) critically ill. Vital sign thresholds identified critically ill patients with AUC 0.521 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.519-0.522), and ESI <3 demonstrated AUC 0.672 (95% CI = 0.671-0.674), logistic regression classified patients with AUC 0.803 (95% CI = 0.802-0.804), 2-layer neural network with structured data with AUC 0.811 (95% CI = 0.807-0.815), gradient tree boosting with AUC 0.820 (95% CI = 0.818-0.821), and the neural network model with textual data with AUC 0.851 (95% CI = 0.849-0.852). All successive increases in AUC were statistically significant.ConclusionDeep-learning techniques represent a promising method of augmenting triage, even with limited information. Further research is needed to determine if improved predictions yield clinical and operational benefits.

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:BackgroundLittle is known about the factors that influence physicians' admission decisions, especially among lower acuity patients. For the purpose of our study, non-medical refers to all of the factors-other than the patient's clinical condition-that could potentially influence admission decisions.ObjectiveTo describe the influence of non-medical factors on physicians' decisions to admit non-critically ill patients presenting to the ED.DesignCross-sectional study of hospital admissions at a single academic medical center.ParticipantsNon-critically ill adult patients admitted to the hospital (n = 297) and the admitting emergency medicine physicians (n = 34).Main measuresA patient survey assessed non-medical factors, including primary care access and utilization. A physician survey assessed clinical and non-medical factors influencing the decision to admit. Based on physician responses, admissions were characterized as "strongly acuity-driven," "moderately acuity-driven," or "weakly acuity-driven." Among these admission types, we compared length of stay, cost, and readmission within 30 days to the hospital or ED.Key resultsBased on the admitting physician's assessment, we categorized the motivation for admission as strongly acuity-driven in 185 (62 %) admissions, moderately acuity-driven in 92 (31 %), and weakly acuity-driven in 20 (7 %). Per the physician surveys, 51 % of hospitalizations were strongly or moderately influenced by one or more non-medical factors, including lack of information about baseline conditions (23 %); inadequate access to outpatient specialty care (14 %); need for a diagnostic testing or procedure (12 %); a recent ED visit (11 %); and inadequate access to primary care (10 %). Compared with strongly-acuity driven admissions, admissions that were moderately or weakly acuity-driven were shorter and less costly but were associated with similar rates of ED (35 %) and hospital (27 %) readmission.ConclusionsNon-medical factors are influential in the admission decisions for many patients presenting to the emergency department. Moderately and weakly acuity-driven admissions may represent a feasible target for alternative care pathways.