Characteristics of intensive care units in Michigan: Not an open and closed case

OBJECTIVE: Delivery of critical care by intensivists has been recommended by several groups. Our objective was to understand the delivery of critical care physician services in Michigan and the role of intensivists and nonintensivist providers in providing care. DESIGN: Descriptive questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Intensive care unit (ICU) directors and nurse managers at 96 sites, representing 115 ICUs from 72 hospitals in Michigan. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The primary outcome measure was the percentage of sites utilizing a closed vs. an open model of ICU care. Secondary outcome measures included the percentage of ICUs utilizing a high-intensity service model, hospital size, ICU size, type of clinician providing care, and clinical activities performed. Twenty-four (25%) sites used a closed model of intensive care, while 72 (75%) had an open model of care. Hospitals with closed ICUs were larger and had larger ICUs than sites with open ICUs ( P < 0.05). Hospitalists serving as attending physicians were strongly associated with an open ICU (odds ratio [OR] = 12.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5-60.2), as was the absence of intensivists in the group (OR = 12.2; 95%CI = 1.4-105.8), while ICU and hospital size were not associated. At 18 sites (20%) all attendings were board certified in Critical Care. Sixty sites had less than 50% board-certified attending physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The closed intensivist-led model of intensive care delivery is not in widespread use in Michigan. In the absence of intensivists, alternate models of care, including the hospitalist model, are frequently used. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2010;5:4–9. © 2010 Society of Hospital Medicine.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64903/1/567_ftp.pd

Implementing a multifaceted intervention to decrease central line-associated bloodstream infections in SEHA (Abu Dhabi Health Services Company) intensive care units: The Abu Dhabi experience

Objective: To determine whether implementation of a multifaceted intervention would significantly reduce the incidence of central line–associated bloodstream infections.Design: Prospective cohort collaborative.Setting and participants: Intensive care units of the Abu Dhabi Health Services Company hospitals in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.Interventions: A bundled intervention consisting of 3 components was implemented as part of the program. It consisted of a multifaceted approach that targeted clinician use of evidence-based infection prevention recommendations, tools that supported the identification of local barriers to these practices, and implementation ideas to help ensure patients received the practices. Comprehensive unit-based safety teams were created to improve safety culture and teamwork. Finally, the measurement and feedback of monthly infection rate data to safety teams, senior leaders, and staff in participating intensive care units was encouraged. The main outcome measure was the quarterly rate of central line–associated bloodstream infections.Results: Eighteen intensive care units from 7 hospitals in Abu Dhabi implemented the program and achieved an overall 38% reduction in their central line–associated bloodstream infection rate, adjusted at the hospital and unit level. The number of units with a quarterly central line–associated bloodstream infection rate of less than 1 infection per 1,000 catheter-days increased by almost 40% between the baseline and postintervention periods.Conclusion: A significant reduction in the global morbidity and mortality associated with central line–associated bloodstream infections is possible across intensive care units in disparate settings using a multifaceted intervention