INTOXICATE-US: validation of the INTOXICATE model in an American health care system.

IF 3.3
Aiden Peleg, Svetlana Ross, Caitlin House, Roland Zemla, Michael Chary
{"title":"INTOXICATE-US: validation of the INTOXICATE model in an American health care system.","authors":"Aiden Peleg, Svetlana Ross, Caitlin House, Roland Zemla, Michael Chary","doi":"10.1080/15563650.2025.2547885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The INTOXICATE model was developed in the Netherlands to decrease unnecessary intensive care unit admissions for poisoned patients. It reduced admissions by one-third in a retrospective study of patients already admitted to the intensive care unit. This study evaluates the model in the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective study of patients older than 12 years in one United States hospital system with a bedside toxicology service from 2023 to 2024. Our primary outcome was the number of patients admitted to the intensive care unit for whom INTOXICATE recommended against admission and who did not require critical care (\"safe downgrades\"). Our secondary outcome was the agreement between INTOXICATE and toxicologists as to which patients under evaluation in the emergency department would need critical care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 112 patients and analyzed 101: 19 (18%) were admitted to the intensive care unit, 16 (16%) to a general medical floor, and 66 (65%) discharged or transferred directly to psychiatry. INTOXICATE identified five (26%) safe downgrades. In the emergency department, INTOXICATE recommended admission to the intensive care unit for 60% of patients, compared to 18% for toxicologists, and had no agreement with toxicologists (Cohen's kappa 0.04; 95% CI: -0.082 to 0.192) Adjusting the threshold of INTOXICATE for recommending admission to the intensive care unit improved agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.55; 95% CI: 0.294 to 0.801) and would have reduced admissions by 22% but also resulted in unsafe downgrades and one death within 30 days.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>For patients already admitted to the intensive care unit, INTOXICATE identified safe downgrades, consistent with prior findings. When applied in the emergency department to predict critical care needs, it tripled admissions and showed poor agreement with toxicologists.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>More work is needed before INTOXICATE can prognosticate which emergency department patients need critical care as accurately as toxicologists.</p>","PeriodicalId":520593,"journal":{"name":"Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.)","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2025.2547885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The INTOXICATE model was developed in the Netherlands to decrease unnecessary intensive care unit admissions for poisoned patients. It reduced admissions by one-third in a retrospective study of patients already admitted to the intensive care unit. This study evaluates the model in the United States.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients older than 12 years in one United States hospital system with a bedside toxicology service from 2023 to 2024. Our primary outcome was the number of patients admitted to the intensive care unit for whom INTOXICATE recommended against admission and who did not require critical care ("safe downgrades"). Our secondary outcome was the agreement between INTOXICATE and toxicologists as to which patients under evaluation in the emergency department would need critical care.

Results: We screened 112 patients and analyzed 101: 19 (18%) were admitted to the intensive care unit, 16 (16%) to a general medical floor, and 66 (65%) discharged or transferred directly to psychiatry. INTOXICATE identified five (26%) safe downgrades. In the emergency department, INTOXICATE recommended admission to the intensive care unit for 60% of patients, compared to 18% for toxicologists, and had no agreement with toxicologists (Cohen's kappa 0.04; 95% CI: -0.082 to 0.192) Adjusting the threshold of INTOXICATE for recommending admission to the intensive care unit improved agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.55; 95% CI: 0.294 to 0.801) and would have reduced admissions by 22% but also resulted in unsafe downgrades and one death within 30 days.

Discussion: For patients already admitted to the intensive care unit, INTOXICATE identified safe downgrades, consistent with prior findings. When applied in the emergency department to predict critical care needs, it tripled admissions and showed poor agreement with toxicologists.

Conclusion: More work is needed before INTOXICATE can prognosticate which emergency department patients need critical care as accurately as toxicologists.

醉酒-美国:醉酒模型在美国医疗保健系统中的验证。
背景:中毒模型是在荷兰开发的,以减少中毒患者不必要的重症监护病房入院。在一项对已经入住重症监护室的病人进行的回顾性研究中,它减少了三分之一的入院率。本研究评估了美国的这一模式。方法:我们对2023年至2024年在美国一家医院系统提供床边毒理学服务的12岁以上患者进行了回顾性研究。我们的主要结局是重症监护病房收治的患者数量,中毒推荐不住院,不需要重症监护(“安全降级”)。我们的次要结果是中毒和毒理学家对于哪些在急诊室接受评估的患者需要重症监护的一致意见。结果:我们筛选了112例患者并分析了101例:19例(18%)入住重症监护室,16例(16%)入住普通医疗楼,66例(65%)出院或直接转至精神科。中毒鉴定出5种(26%)安全降级。在急诊科,60%的患者建议入住重症监护病房,而毒理学家的这一比例为18%,并且与毒理学家的建议不一致(Cohen的kappa为0.04;95% CI: -0.082至0.192)调整推荐入住重症监护病房的INTOXICATE阈值提高了一致性(Cohen的kappa为0.55;95% CI: 0.294至0.801),可以减少22%的入院率,但也会导致不安全的降级和30天内的1例死亡。讨论:对于已经入住重症监护病房的患者,INTOXICATE鉴定出安全降级,与先前的发现一致。当应用于急诊科预测重症监护需求时,它的入院人数增加了三倍,与毒理学家的一致性很差。结论:在INTOXICATE能够像毒理学家那样准确地预测急诊科哪些病人需要重症监护之前,还需要做更多的工作。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信