Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29976238›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2018

Emergency Department disposition decisions and associated mortality and costs in ICU patients with suspected infection.

Shannon M Fernando, Bram Rochwerg, Peter M Reardon, Kednapa Thavorn, Andrew J E Seely, Jeffrey J Perry, Douglas P Barnaby, Peter Tanuseputro, Kwadwo Kyeremanteng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

9 authors.

Shannon M FernandoDivision of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. sfern014@uottawa.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-4549-4289
Bram RochwergDivision of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Peter M ReardonDivision of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Kednapa ThavornSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Andrew J E SeelyDivision of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jeffrey J PerryDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Douglas P BarnabyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Peter TanuseputroClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Kwadwo KyeremantengDivision of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing emergency department (ED) assessment, patients with infection may be directly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or alternatively admitted to hospital wards or sent home. Those admitted to the hospital wards or sent home may experience future deterioration necessitating ICU admission.

methodsWe used a prospectively collected registry from two hospitals within a single tertiary care hospital network between 2011 and 2014. Patient information, outcomes, and costs were stored in the hospital data warehouse. Patients were categorized into three groups: (1) admitted directly from the ED to the ICU; (2) initially admitted to the hospital wards, with ICU admission within 72 hours of initial presentation; or (3) sent home from the ED, with ICU admission within 72 hours of initial presentation. Using multivariable logistic regression, we sought to compare outcomes and total costs between groups. Total costs were evaluated using a generalized linear model.

resultsA total of 657 patients were included; of these, 338 (51.4%) were admitted directly from the ED to the ICU, 246 (37.4%) were initially admitted to the wards and then to the ICU, and 73 (11.1%) were initially sent home and then admitted to the ICU. In-hospital mortality was lowest among patients admitted directly to the ICU (29.5%), as compared with patients admitted to the ICU from wards (42.7%) or home (61.6%) (P < 0.001). As compared with direct ICU admission, disposition to the ward was associated with an adjusted OR of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.22-2.50; P < 0.01) for mortality, and disposition home was associated with an adjusted OR of 4.02 (95% CI, 2.32-6.98). Mean total costs were lowest among patients directly admitted to the ICU ($26,748), as compared with those admitted from the wards ($107,315) and those initially sent home ($71,492) (P < 0.001). Cost per survivor was lower among patients directly admitted to the ICU ($37,986) than either those initially admitted to the wards ($187,230) or those sent home ($186,390) (P < 0.001).

conclusionsIn comparison with direct admission to the ICU, patients with suspected infection admitted to the ICU who have previously been discharged home or admitted to the ward are associated with higher in-hospital mortality and costs.

Indexed as

Academic Medical CentersAgedAged, 80 and overEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHospitalizationHospital MortalityHumansInfectionsIntensive Care UnitsLength of StayLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedOntarioProspective StudiesDispositionEmergency departmentHospital costsInfectious diseasesSepsis

Identifiers

PMID29976238
PMCPMC6034286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.