ArticleCritical care medicine2011
Decreased mortality resulting from a multicomponent intervention in a tertiary care medical intensive care unit.
Article in Critical care medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes used in randomised controlled trials of nutrition in the critically ill: a systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Pooled it
- Predictors of sedation period for critical illness patients focusing on early rehabilitation on the bed.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Impact of a Postintensive Care Unit Multidisciplinary Follow-up on the Quality of Life (SUIVI-REA): Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Time to active sitting position: One-year findings from a temporary COVID-19 intensive care unit.Respiratory medicine · 2022Article
- Effects of a multifaceted intervention QI program to improve ICU performance.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Standards for Neurologic Critical Care Units: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from The Neurocritical Care Society.Neurocritical care · 2018Article
- Automatic quality improvement reports in the intensive care unit: One step closer toward meaningful use.World journal of critical care medicine · 2016Article
- Safe, high quality care around the clock: what will it take to get us there?Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Article
- Teamwork in the intensive care unit.The American psychologistReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether a multicomponent intervention, particularly increasing staff, can achieve reductions in patient mortality in an already high-intensity, Leapfrog-compliant medical intensive care unit.
designRetrospective, observational study.
settingMedical intensive care unit of a tertiary care, academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 1,263 patients admitted between April 19, 2004 and April 18, 2006 (before the organizational change) were compared with 2,424 patients admitted between September 5, 2006 and September 4, 2008.
interventionsA multicomponent intervention including the physical move from a 10-bed to a 29-bed medical intensive care unit with larger patient rooms, the initiation of 24-hr critical care specialist coverage in the medical intensive care unit, an increase in the respiratory therapist:patient ratio, and the addition of a clinical pharmacist to the multidisciplinary team. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsMeasurements were made based on mortality in the intensive care unit and in-hospital. Patient comorbidity as measured by the Charlson score did not change after the intervention (2.7 ± 2.7 vs. 2.8 ± 2.6, p = .62), nor did the acuity of illness as measured by the case mix index (3.0 ± 3.7 vs. 3.1 ± 3.8, p = .69). The unadjusted medical intensive care unit mortality decreased from 18.4% to 14.9% (p = .006), as did in-hospital mortality (from 25.8% to 21.7%, p = .005). The reduction in medical intensive care unit mortality was consistent in the multivariable regression with adjustment for multiple possible confounders (odds ratio = 0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.91, p = .003), as was the reduction in hospital mortality (odds ratio = 0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.88, p = .001). In mechanically ventilated patients, there was an increase in median 28-day ventilator-free days (21, interquartile range 0-25 vs. 22, interquartile range 0-26, p = .04). An increase in median medical intensive care unit (2.4, interquartile range 1.1-5.2 vs. 2.7, interquartile range 1.3-5.9), p = .009) but not hospital (8.3, interquartile range 4.1-17.0 vs. 8.2, interquartile range 4.0-16.8; p = .851) length of stay in days occurred with the intervention. The mean daily dosing of fentanyl and lorazepam decreased after the intervention.
conclusionsA multicomponent reorganization of medical intensive care unit services was associated with important reductions in mortality for medical intensive care unit patients, as well as an increased number of ventilator-free days. Substantial and sustained changes in clinically important outcomes may be obtained from organizational changes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.