ArticleCritical care medicine2015
County-Level Effects of Prehospital Regionalization of Critically Ill Patients: A Simulation Study.
Article in Critical care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Emergency Care Delivery Through Computer Simulation Modeling.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2018Article
- Case Volume-Outcomes Associations Among Patients With Severe Sepsis Who Underwent Interhospital Transfer.Critical care medicine · 2017Article
- Hospital-Level Changes in Adult ICU Bed Supply in the United States.Critical care medicine · 2017Article
- External validation of a prehospital risk score for critical illness.Critical care (London, England) · 2016Article
- Regionalized Critical Care May Be Feasible, But Will It Improve Outcomes?Critical care medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRegionalization may improve critical care delivery, yet stakeholders cite concerns about its feasibility. We sought to determine the operational effects of prehospital regionalization of nontrauma, nonarrest critical illness.
settingKing County, Washington.
designDiscrete event simulation study. PATIENTS: All 2006 hospital discharge data, linked to all adult, eligible patients transported by county emergency medical services agencies.
interventionsWe simulated active triage of high-risk patients to designated referral centers using a validated prehospital risk score; we studied three regionalization scenarios: 1) up triage, 2) up and down triage, and 3) up and down triage after reducing ICU beds by 25%. We determined the effect on patient routing, ICU occupancy at referral and nonreferral hospitals, and emergency medical services transport times. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsA total of 119,117 patients were hospitalized at 11 nonreferral centers and 76,817 patients were hospitalized at three referral centers. Among 20,835 emergency medical services patients, 7,817 patients (43%) were eligible for up triage and 10,242 patients (57%) were eligible for down triage. At baseline, mean daily ICU bed occupancy was 61% referral and 47% at nonreferral hospitals. Up triage increased referral ICU occupancy to 68%, up and down triage to 64%, and up and down triage with bed reduction to 74%. Mean daily nonreferral ICU occupancy did not exceed 60%. Total emergency medical services transport time increased by less than 3% with up and down triage.
conclusionsRegionalization based on prehospital triage of the critically ill can allocate high-risk patients to referral hospitals without adversely affecting ICU occupancy or prehospital travel time.
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.