Hospital burden of critical illness across global settings: a point prevalence and cohort study in Malawi, Sri Lanka and Sweden.

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Carl Otto Schell, Raphael Kazidule Kayambankadzanja, Abi Beane, Andreas Wellhagen, Chamira Kodippily, Anna Hvarfner, Grace Banda, Nalayini Jegathesan, Christoffer Hintze, Wageesha Wijesiriwardana, Martin Gerdin Wärnberg, Jayasingha Arachchilage Sujeewa, Mtisunge Kachingwe, Petronella Bjurling-Sjöberg, Isaac Mbingwani, Annie Kalibwe Mkandawire, Hampus Sjöstedt, Wezzie Kumwenda-Mwafulirwa, Surenthirakumaran Rajendra, Odala Kamandani Dzinjalamala, Cecilia Stalsby Lundborg, Kwazizira Samson Mndolo, Miklós Lipcsey, Rashan Haniffa, Lisa Kurland, Markus Castegren, Tim Baker
{"title":"Hospital burden of critical illness across global settings: a point prevalence and cohort study in Malawi, Sri Lanka and Sweden.","authors":"Carl Otto Schell, Raphael Kazidule Kayambankadzanja, Abi Beane, Andreas Wellhagen, Chamira Kodippily, Anna Hvarfner, Grace Banda, Nalayini Jegathesan, Christoffer Hintze, Wageesha Wijesiriwardana, Martin Gerdin Wärnberg, Jayasingha Arachchilage Sujeewa, Mtisunge Kachingwe, Petronella Bjurling-Sjöberg, Isaac Mbingwani, Annie Kalibwe Mkandawire, Hampus Sjöstedt, Wezzie Kumwenda-Mwafulirwa, Surenthirakumaran Rajendra, Odala Kamandani Dzinjalamala, Cecilia Stalsby Lundborg, Kwazizira Samson Mndolo, Miklós Lipcsey, Rashan Haniffa, Lisa Kurland, Markus Castegren, Tim Baker","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The burden of critical illness may have been underestimated. Previous analyses have used data from intensive care units (ICUs) only, and there is a lack of evidence about where in hospitals critically ill patients receive care. This study aims to determine the burden of critical illness among adult inpatients across hospitals in different global settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a prospective, observational, hospital-based, point prevalence and cohort study in countries of different socioeconomic levels: Malawi, Sri Lanka and Sweden. On specific days, all adult in-patients in the eight study hospitals were examined by the study team for the presence of critical illness and followed up for hospital mortality. Patients with at least one severely deranged vital sign were classified as critically ill. The primary outcomes were the presence of critical illness and 30-day hospital mortality. In addition, we determined where the critically ill patients were being cared for and the association between critical illness and 30-day hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 3652 hospitalised patients, we found a point prevalence of critical illness of 12.0% (95% CI 11.0 to 13.1), with a hospital mortality of 18.7% (95% CI 15.3 to 22.6). The crude OR of death of critically ill patients compared with non-critically ill patients was 7.5 (95% CI 5.4 to 10.2). Of the critically ill patients, 96.1% (95% CI 93.9 to 97.6) were cared for in the general wards outside ICUs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study has revealed a substantial burden of critical illness in hospitals from different global settings. One in eight hospital in-patients was critically ill, 19% of the critically ill died in hospital, and 96% of the critically ill patients were cared for outside of ICUs. Implementing the most feasible and low-cost critical care in general wards throughout hospitals would impact a large number of high-risk patients and has the potential to improve outcomes across all acute care specialties.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12004492/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017119","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The burden of critical illness may have been underestimated. Previous analyses have used data from intensive care units (ICUs) only, and there is a lack of evidence about where in hospitals critically ill patients receive care. This study aims to determine the burden of critical illness among adult inpatients across hospitals in different global settings.

Methods: We performed a prospective, observational, hospital-based, point prevalence and cohort study in countries of different socioeconomic levels: Malawi, Sri Lanka and Sweden. On specific days, all adult in-patients in the eight study hospitals were examined by the study team for the presence of critical illness and followed up for hospital mortality. Patients with at least one severely deranged vital sign were classified as critically ill. The primary outcomes were the presence of critical illness and 30-day hospital mortality. In addition, we determined where the critically ill patients were being cared for and the association between critical illness and 30-day hospital mortality.

Results: Among 3652 hospitalised patients, we found a point prevalence of critical illness of 12.0% (95% CI 11.0 to 13.1), with a hospital mortality of 18.7% (95% CI 15.3 to 22.6). The crude OR of death of critically ill patients compared with non-critically ill patients was 7.5 (95% CI 5.4 to 10.2). Of the critically ill patients, 96.1% (95% CI 93.9 to 97.6) were cared for in the general wards outside ICUs.

Conclusions: The study has revealed a substantial burden of critical illness in hospitals from different global settings. One in eight hospital in-patients was critically ill, 19% of the critically ill died in hospital, and 96% of the critically ill patients were cared for outside of ICUs. Implementing the most feasible and low-cost critical care in general wards throughout hospitals would impact a large number of high-risk patients and has the potential to improve outcomes across all acute care specialties.

全球范围内危重疾病的医院负担:马拉维、斯里兰卡和瑞典的点流行率和队列研究
危重疾病的负担可能被低估了。以前的分析只使用了重症监护病房(icu)的数据,并且缺乏关于重症患者在医院何处接受护理的证据。本研究旨在确定全球不同医院的成人住院患者的危重疾病负担。方法:我们在马拉维、斯里兰卡和瑞典等不同社会经济水平的国家进行了一项前瞻性、观察性、以医院为基础、点患病率和队列研究。在特定的日子里,研究小组对八家研究医院的所有成年住院患者进行了危重疾病检查,并随访了医院死亡率。至少有一项生命体征严重失常的患者被列为危重患者。主要结局是出现危重疾病和30天住院死亡率。此外,我们还确定了危重患者在哪里接受护理,以及危重疾病与30天住院死亡率之间的关系。结果:在3652名住院患者中,我们发现重症点患病率为12.0% (95% CI 11.0至13.1),住院死亡率为18.7% (95% CI 15.3至22.6)。危重患者与非危重患者的粗死亡比为7.5 (95% CI 5.4 ~ 10.2)。危重患者中,96.1% (95% CI 93.9 ~ 97.6)在icu外的普通病房接受治疗。结论:该研究揭示了来自全球不同环境的医院的重大疾病负担。1 / 8的住院患者危重,19%的危重患者在院内死亡,96%的危重患者在icu外接受治疗。在所有医院的普通病房实施最可行和低成本的重症监护将影响大量高风险患者,并有可能改善所有急性护理专科的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信