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.