Swoboda S, Castro JA, Earsing KA, Lipsett PA. Road trips and resources: there is a better way.
Crit Care 1997;
1:105-110. [PMID:
11056703 PMCID:
PMC28995 DOI:
10.1186/cc113]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/1997] [Revised: 11/17/1997] [Accepted: 12/01/1997] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transport of critically ill patients for diagnostic and/or therapeutic management involves significant consumption of resources. In an effort to improve the delivery of care to these patients and decrease resource utilization, Hill-Rom (Batesville, IN, USA) have developed a self-contained device (CarePorterTM) designed to provide both intensive care unit (ICU) support and transport capability. We hypothesized that the use of the CarePorter when compared with a standard or specialty bed (with transfer to a stretcher) would decrease the number of personnel and time required for transport without altering the current ICU standards of care. RESULTS: Over a 3 month period, 35 ventilated patient transports were divided into the following groups: specialty bed to stretcher (n = 13), standard bed (n = 9) and CarePorter (n = 13). The APACHE II score at the time of transport was not different between the groups, nor was the ongoing care being delivered. The CarePorter group had a statistically greater fractional inspiration of oxygen and positive end expiratory pressure, when compared with the other two groups (P < 0.05). The use of the CarePorter device decreased the number of personnel required to transport a patient (2.1 +/- 0.3 vs 3.6 +/- 0.5 for the standard bed and and 3.2 +/- 0.7 for the specialty bed; P = 0.0001). The CarePorter also decreased the number of resources utilized for the preparation of a patient for transport (P = 0.001) when compared to the other groups. This was primarily due to the transfer of patients from specialty beds to a stretcher. Overall respiratory therapy time was also much less with the CarePorter (5.9 +/- 5.7 min), when compared with the standard (26 +/- 10 min) or specialty bed (22 +/- 11 min) (P = 0.0008). In addition, the CarePorter group also had a higher nursing satisfaction score with the overall transport (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the CarePorter device resulted in maximization of the delivery of patient care, time savings, significantly improved utilization of escort personnel
Collapse