Association of changes in the use of board-certified critical care intensivists with mortality outcomes for trauma patients at a well-established level I urban trauma center.
Diana Petitti, Vicki Bennett, Charles Kung Chao Hu
{"title":"Association of changes in the use of board-certified critical care intensivists with mortality outcomes for trauma patients at a well-established level I urban trauma center.","authors":"Diana Petitti, Vicki Bennett, Charles Kung Chao Hu","doi":"10.1186/1752-2897-6-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An intensivist-directed Intensive Care Unit is a closed-model unit in which a physician formally trained in critical care plays a leadership role in patient management. In the last decade, there has been a move toward closed Intensive Care Units. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the association of changes in the use of intensivists to a closed-model with mortality outcomes in injured patients seen in a long-established urban Level I Trauma Center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This analysis used data from the Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn Medical Center trauma registry from January 1, 2002-December 31, 2008. Mortality prior to hospital discharge was compared in the pre-intensivist (intensivists were not employed and did not provide care), partial intensivist (intensivists were employed and provided care during some Intensive Care Unit shifts) and full-time intensivist (intensivists were employed and provided care in the Intensive Care Unit full time) periods. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratios for mortality adjusting for patient characteristics and injury severity for the partial intensivist and full-time intensivist periods compared with the pre-intensivist period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 18,918 patients, 365 (1.9%) died before hospital discharge. After adjustment for demographic factors and injury severity score, for all patients, odds ratios comparing the partial intensivist and full-intensivist periods with the pre-intensivist period were 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.64-1.11) and 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.41). In patients with an injury severity score 16-24, the adjusted OR for death was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.58) comparing the partial-intensivist with the pre-intensivist period and 0.30 (95% CI 0.11-0.88) comparing the full-time intensivist period with the pre-intensivist period. For patients age 65 + years, compared with the pre-intensivist period, odds ratio were 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.31-0.84) and 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.32-1.16) for the partial and full-time intensivist periods respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In our setting, a change to a closed Intensive Care Unit model was associated with improved mortality outcomes in patients with less severe injuries and patients age 65+ years.</p>","PeriodicalId":87652,"journal":{"name":"Journal of trauma management & outcomes","volume":"6 ","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1752-2897-6-3","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of trauma management & outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-2897-6-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
Background: An intensivist-directed Intensive Care Unit is a closed-model unit in which a physician formally trained in critical care plays a leadership role in patient management. In the last decade, there has been a move toward closed Intensive Care Units. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the association of changes in the use of intensivists to a closed-model with mortality outcomes in injured patients seen in a long-established urban Level I Trauma Center.
Methods: This analysis used data from the Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn Medical Center trauma registry from January 1, 2002-December 31, 2008. Mortality prior to hospital discharge was compared in the pre-intensivist (intensivists were not employed and did not provide care), partial intensivist (intensivists were employed and provided care during some Intensive Care Unit shifts) and full-time intensivist (intensivists were employed and provided care in the Intensive Care Unit full time) periods. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratios for mortality adjusting for patient characteristics and injury severity for the partial intensivist and full-time intensivist periods compared with the pre-intensivist period.
Results: Of 18,918 patients, 365 (1.9%) died before hospital discharge. After adjustment for demographic factors and injury severity score, for all patients, odds ratios comparing the partial intensivist and full-intensivist periods with the pre-intensivist period were 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.64-1.11) and 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.41). In patients with an injury severity score 16-24, the adjusted OR for death was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.58) comparing the partial-intensivist with the pre-intensivist period and 0.30 (95% CI 0.11-0.88) comparing the full-time intensivist period with the pre-intensivist period. For patients age 65 + years, compared with the pre-intensivist period, odds ratio were 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.31-0.84) and 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.32-1.16) for the partial and full-time intensivist periods respectively.
Conclusions: In our setting, a change to a closed Intensive Care Unit model was associated with improved mortality outcomes in patients with less severe injuries and patients age 65+ years.
背景:重症监护病房是一种封闭的模式单位,其中经过重症监护正式培训的医生在患者管理中发挥领导作用。在过去的十年里,有一种趋向于封闭的重症监护病房的趋势。本评估的目的是评估在一个历史悠久的城市一级创伤中心,重症监护医师使用的变化与受伤患者死亡率结果的关系。方法:本分析使用2002年1月1日至2008年12月31日斯科茨代尔医疗保健奥斯本医疗中心创伤登记处的数据。出院前的死亡率在前重症监护医师(未雇用重症监护医师且不提供护理)、部分重症监护医师(在重症监护病房的一些班次中雇用重症监护医师并提供护理)和全职重症监护医师(在重症监护病房全职雇用重症监护医师并提供护理)期间进行了比较。采用多元logistic回归分析来估计经患者特征和损伤严重程度调整后的部分重症监护和全日制重症监护期间与预重症监护期间死亡率的优势比。结果:18918例患者中,365例(1.9%)在出院前死亡。在调整人口统计学因素和损伤严重程度评分后,所有患者的部分强化期和完全强化期与强化前期的比值比分别为0.84(95%可信区间0.64-1.11)和0.99(95%可信区间0.69-1.41)。在损伤严重程度评分为16-24分的患者中,局部强化期与预强化期的调整后死亡OR为0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.58),全日制强化期与预强化期的调整后死亡OR为0.30 (95% CI 0.11-0.88)。对于65岁以上的患者,与强化期前相比,部分强化期和全日制强化期的优势比分别为0.51(95%可信区间0.31-0.84)和0.61(95%可信区间0.32-1.16)。结论:在我们的研究中,封闭式重症监护病房模式的改变与轻度损伤患者和65岁以上患者的死亡率结果改善相关。