Possibilities for cost containment in intensive care

Midodrine improves clinical and economic outcomes in patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Prolonged use of intravenous (IV) vasopressors in patients with septic shock can lead to deleterious effects.

AIMS

This study assessed the impact of midodrine administration on weaning off IV vasopressors and its economic value.

METHODS

It is a prospective randomized controlled study of 60 resuscitated patients with septic shock who demonstrated clinical stability on low-dose IV vasopressors for at least 24 h. Participants were randomized into two groups: norepinephrine (IV norepinephrine) and midodrine (IV norepinephrine + oral midodrine 10 mg thrice a day). A cost comparison was applied based on the outcomes of both groups.

RESULTS

The median duration of norepinephrine administration in the midodrine and norepinephrine groups was 4 and 6 days, respectively (p = 0.001). Norepinephrine weaning time was significantly less in the midodrine versus norepinephrine groups (26 and 78.5 h, respectively; p < 0.001). Mortality was 43.3% versus 73.3% in the midodrine and norepinephrine groups, respectively (p = 0.018). The mean length of stay was comparable in the two groups. The midodrine group showed cost-saving results versus the norepinephrine group.

CONCLUSION

The use of midodrine in septic shock patients significantly reduced IV norepinephrine duration, weaning period during the septic shock recovery phase, and mortality. Thus, the use of midodrine is dominant with less cost, better outcome and a cost-saving option in terms of budget impact analysis. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 03,911,817) on April 11, 2019.

A Conceptual Framework for Improving Critical Care Patient Flow and Bed Use

RATIONALE

High demand for intensive care unit (ICU) services and limited bed availability have prompted hospitals to address capacity planning challenges. Simulation modeling can examine ICU bed assignment policies, accounting for patient acuity, to reduce ICU admission delays.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a framework for data-driven modeling of ICU patient flow, identify key measurable outcomes, and present illustrative analysis demonstrating the impact of various bed allocation scenarios on outcomes.

METHODS

A description of key inputs for constructing a queuing model was outlined, and an illustrative simulation model was developed to reflect current triage protocol within the medical ICU and step-down unit (SDU) at a single tertiary-care hospital. Patient acuity, arrival rate, and unit length of stay, consisting of a "service time" and "time to transfer," were estimated from 12 months of retrospective data (n = 2,710 adult patients) for 36 ICU and 15 SDU staffed beds. Patient priority was based on acuity and whether the patient originated in the emergency department. The model simulated the following hypothetical scenarios: (1) varied ICU/SDU sizes, (2) reserved ICU beds as a triage strategy, (3) lower targets for time to transfer out of the ICU, and (4) ICU expansion by up to four beds. Outcomes included ICU admission wait times and unit occupancy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

With current bed allocation, simulated wait time averaged 1.13 (SD, 1.39) hours. Reallocating all SDU beds as ICU decreased overall wait times by 7.2% to 1.06 (SD, 1.39) hours and increased bed occupancy from 80 to 84%. Reserving the last available bed for acute patients reduced wait times for acute patients from 0.84 (SD, 1.12) to 0.31 (SD, 0.30) hours, but tripled subacute patients' wait times from 1.39 (SD, 1.81) to 4.27 (SD, 5.44) hours. Setting transfer times to wards for all ICU/SDU patients to 1 hour decreased wait times for incoming ICU patients, comparable to building one to two additional ICU beds.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital queuing and simulation modeling with empiric data inputs can evaluate how changes in ICU bed assignment could impact unit occupancy levels and patient wait times. Trade-offs associated with dedicating resources for acute patients versus expanding capacity for all patients can be examined.

Higher pressure ulcer risk on intensive care? - comparison between general wards and intensive care units

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of being treated in intensive care units in comparison with general hospital wards regarding pressure ulcer occurrence when controlled for various risk factors.

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcer occurrence is commonly used as an indicator for the quality of care. Large-scale incidence studies are costly and difficult to perform.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of patient data (n = 32,400) collected during 2002-2009 as part of eight multicentre pressure ulcer surveys in 256 German hospitals.

METHODS

Ward-acquired pressure ulcer rate was used for the calculation of effect sizes as a surrogate parameter for pressure ulcer incidence. The SRISAG (surface, repositioning, immobility, shear forces, age, gender) logistic regression model was used to control for differences in case mix.

RESULTS

Pressure ulcer prevention and intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors differ for patients from hospital wards compared with those from intensive care wards. The ward-acquired pressure ulcer rate in general hospital wards was 3·9% (1·5% excluding grade 1). In intensive care, the rate was 14·9% (8·5% excluding grade 1), which corresponds with an unadjusted odds ratio of 4·3 (95%CI 3·8-4·9). After the SRISAG model was applied, the odds ratio was reduced to 1·5 (CI 1·2-1·7).

CONCLUSION

When surface, repositioning, immobility, shear forces, age and gender are controlled for the institutional factor intensive care unit vs. general hospital wards is no longer a high-risk factor for the development of pressure ulcer. The SRISAG model is simple and can be used to compare the occurrence of pressure ulcer between different medical specialties.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Application of this model allows more valuable comparison of the occurrence of pressure ulcer in different specialities and enables clinical practitioners and health care planners to use this outcome as an indicator for the quality of care to avoid confounding.

Perception of intensive care unit stressors in Malaysian Federal Territory hospitals

The Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is a therapeutic place for monitoring critically ill patients. However, it is a stressful area for the patients and it is causing them great anxiety. Previous studies have identified three groups of stressors in ICU namely; physical, psychological and environmental. The aims of this study were to determine the ICU stressors as experienced by patients and to determine the level of stressors felt by patients in ICU. A cross sectional study was done on 70 patients from two tertiary hospitals in Malaysia. A face-to-face interview with structured questionnaire was used for patients. Data collection occurred from 15 December 2006 to 31 January 2007. The five major ICU stressors perceived by patients were pain, being stuck with needles, boredom, missing their spouses and being too hot/cold. The ICU physical stressors were the major items ranked by post ICU patients. The findings from this study provided a set of baseline information to the health care providers, particularly ICU nurses in Malaysia, with which to provide better care for the patients in ICU.