Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19906740›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2009

Evaluation of modernisation of adult critical care services in England: time series and cost effectiveness analysis.

Andrew Hutchings, Mary Alison Durand, Richard Grieve, David Harrison, Kathy Rowan, Judith Green, John Cairns, Nick Black

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Decision-making in intensive care medicine - A review.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2018
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Andrew HutchingsHealth Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT. andrew.hutchings@lshtm.ac.uk
Mary Alison Durand
Richard Grieve
David Harrison
Kathy Rowan
Judith Green
John Cairns
Nick Black

Funding

Medical Research Council G106/1240
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the impact and cost effectiveness of a programme to transform adult critical care throughout England initiated in late 2000.

designEvaluation of trends in inputs, processes, and outcomes during 1998-2000 compared with last quarter of 2000-6.

setting96 critical care units in England.

participants349,817 admissions to critical care units.

interventionsAdoption of key elements of modernisation and increases in capacity. Units were categorised according to when they adopted key elements of modernisation and increases in capacity.

main outcome measuresTrends in inputs (beds, costs), processes (transfers between units, discharge practices, length of stay, readmissions), and outcomes (unit and hospital mortality), with adjustment for case mix. Differences in annual costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) adjusted for case mix were used to calculate net monetary benefits (valuing a QALY gain at pound20,000 ($33,170, euro22 100)). The incremental net monetary benefits were reported as the difference in net monetary benefits after versus before 2000.

resultsIn the six years after 2000, the risk of unit mortality adjusted for case mix fell by 11.3% and hospital mortality by 13.4% compared with the steady state in the three preceding years. This was accompanied by substantial reductions both in transfers between units and in unplanned night discharges. The mean annual net monetary benefit increased significantly after 2000 (from pound402 ($667, euro445) to pound1096 ($1810, euro1210)), indicating that the changes were relatively cost effective. The relative contribution of the different initiatives to these improvements is unclear.

conclusionSubstantial improvements in NHS critical care have occurred in England since 2000. While it is unclear which factors were responsible, collectively the interventions represented a highly cost effective use of NHS resources.

Indexed as

Bed OccupancyCost-Benefit AnalysisCritical CareEnglandFemaleHospital MortalityHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPatient DischargePatient ReadmissionPatient TransferPrognosisProgram EvaluationQuality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

PMID19906740
PMCPMC2776132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.