The Perceived Likelihood of Outcome of Critical Care Patients and Its Impact on Triage Decisions: A Case-Based Survey of Intensivists and Internists in a Canadian, Quaternary Care Hospital Network.

INTRODUCTION:There is high variability amongst physicians' assessments of appropriate ICU admissions, which may be based on potential assessments of benefit. We aimed to examine whether opinions over benefit of ICU admissions of critically ill medical inpatients differed based on physician specialty, namely intensivists and internists. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We carried out an anonymous, web-based questionnaire survey containing 5 typical ICU cases to all ICU physicians regardless of their base specialty as well as to all internists in 3 large teaching hospitals. For each case, we asked the participants to determine if the patient was an appropriate ICU admission and to assess different parameters (e.g. baseline function, likelihood of survival to ICU discharge, etc.). Agreement was measured using kappa values. RESULTS:21 intensivists and 22 internists filled out the survey (response rate = 87.5% and 35% respectively). Predictions of likelihood of survival to ICU admission, hospital discharge and return to baseline were not significantly different between the two groups. However, agreement between individuals within each group was only slight to fair (kappa range = 0.09-0.22). There was no statistically significant difference in predicting ICU survival and prediction of survival to hospital discharge between both groups. The accuracy with which physicians predicted actual outcomes ranged between 35% and 100% and did not significantly differ between the two groups. A greater proportion of internists favoured non resuscitative measures (24.6% of intensivists and 46.9% internists [p = 0.002]). CONCLUSION:In a case-based survey, physician specialty base did not affect assessments of ICU admission benefit or accuracy in outcome prediction, but resulted in a statistically significant difference in level of care assignments. Of note, significant disagreement amongst individuals in each group was found

Impact of a Local Low-Cost Ward-Based Response System in a Canadian Tertiary Care Hospital

Background. Medical emergency teams (METs) or rapid response teams (RRTs) facilitate early intervention for clinically deteriorating hospitalized patients. In healthcare systems where financial resources and intensivist availability are limited, the establishment of such teams can prove challenging. Objectives. A low-cost, ward-based response system was implemented on a medical clinical teaching unit in a Montreal tertiary care hospital. A prospective before/after study was undertaken to examine the system’s impact on time to intervention, code blue rates, and ICU transfer rates. Results. Ninety-five calls were placed for 82 patients. Median time from patient decompensation to intervention was 5 min (IQR 1–10), compared to 3.4 hours (IQR 0.6–12.4) before system implementation (p<0.001). Total number of ICU admissions from the CTU was reduced from 4.8/1000 patient days (±2.2) before intervention to 3.3/1000 patient days (±1.4) after intervention (IRR: 0.82, p=0.04 (CI 95%: 0.69–0.99)). CTU code blue rates decreased from 2.2/1000 patient days (±1.6) before intervention to 1.2/1000 patient days (±1.3) after intervention (IRR: 0.51, p=0.02 (CI 95%: 0.30–0.89)). Conclusion. Our local ward-based response system achieved a significant reduction in the time of patient decompensation to initial intervention, in CTU code blue rates, and in CTU to ICU transfers without necessitating additional usage of financial or human resources

Aggregate responses of Internists and Intensivists to the case scenarios.

<p>Aggregate responses of Internists and Intensivists to the case scenarios.</p

Demographic Data.

<p>Demographic Data.</p

Agreement amongst intensivists and internists.

<p>Agreement amongst intensivists and internists.</p

Aggregates of levels of care selected by respondents as appropriate for all presented cases.

<p>1: Full care including resuscitative measures. 2: Full care including resuscitative measures but with exceptions (specified individually). 3: Maximum care excluding resuscitation and transfer to critical care units 4: Comfort care. A: Results for intensivists B. Results for internists</p