Cargando…

Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical prediction model for poor outcome after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge in a large observational data set and couple this to an acute post-ICU ward-based review tool (PIRT) to identify high-risk patients at the time of ICU discharge and improve their acute ward-b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fabes, Jez, Seligman, William, Barrett, Carolyn, McKechnie, Stuart, Griffiths, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770841/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29282265
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018322
_version_ 1783293145745719296
author Fabes, Jez
Seligman, William
Barrett, Carolyn
McKechnie, Stuart
Griffiths, John
author_facet Fabes, Jez
Seligman, William
Barrett, Carolyn
McKechnie, Stuart
Griffiths, John
author_sort Fabes, Jez
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical prediction model for poor outcome after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge in a large observational data set and couple this to an acute post-ICU ward-based review tool (PIRT) to identify high-risk patients at the time of ICU discharge and improve their acute ward-based review and outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective patient cohort of index ICU admissions between June 2006 and October 2011 receiving routine inpatient review. Prospective cohort between March 2012 and March 2013 underwent risk scoring (PIRT) which subsequently guided inpatient ward-based review. SETTING: Two UK adult ICUs. PARTICIPANTS: 4212 eligible discharges from ICU in the retrospective development cohort and 1028 patients included in the prospective intervention cohort. INTERVENTIONS: Multivariate analysis was performed to determine factors associated with poor outcome in the retrospective cohort and used to generate a discharge risk score. A discharge and daily ward-based review tool incorporating an adjusted risk score was introduced. The prospective cohort underwent risk scoring at ICU discharge and inpatient review using the PIRT. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the composite of death or readmission to ICU within 14 days of ICU discharge following the index ICU admission. RESULTS: PIRT review was achieved for 67.3% of all eligible discharges and improved the targeting of acute post-ICU review to high-risk patients. The presence of ward-based PIRT review in the prospective cohort did not correlate with a reduction in poor outcome overall (P=0.876) or overall readmission but did reduce early readmission (within the first 48 hours) from 4.5% to 3.6% (P=0.039), while increasing the rate of late readmission (48 hours to 14 days) from 2.7% to 5.8% (P=0.046). CONCLUSION: PIRT facilitates the appropriate targeting of nurse-led inpatient review acutely after ICU discharge but does not reduce hospital mortality or overall readmission rates to ICU.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5770841
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57708412018-01-19 Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK Fabes, Jez Seligman, William Barrett, Carolyn McKechnie, Stuart Griffiths, John BMJ Open Intensive Care OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical prediction model for poor outcome after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge in a large observational data set and couple this to an acute post-ICU ward-based review tool (PIRT) to identify high-risk patients at the time of ICU discharge and improve their acute ward-based review and outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective patient cohort of index ICU admissions between June 2006 and October 2011 receiving routine inpatient review. Prospective cohort between March 2012 and March 2013 underwent risk scoring (PIRT) which subsequently guided inpatient ward-based review. SETTING: Two UK adult ICUs. PARTICIPANTS: 4212 eligible discharges from ICU in the retrospective development cohort and 1028 patients included in the prospective intervention cohort. INTERVENTIONS: Multivariate analysis was performed to determine factors associated with poor outcome in the retrospective cohort and used to generate a discharge risk score. A discharge and daily ward-based review tool incorporating an adjusted risk score was introduced. The prospective cohort underwent risk scoring at ICU discharge and inpatient review using the PIRT. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the composite of death or readmission to ICU within 14 days of ICU discharge following the index ICU admission. RESULTS: PIRT review was achieved for 67.3% of all eligible discharges and improved the targeting of acute post-ICU review to high-risk patients. The presence of ward-based PIRT review in the prospective cohort did not correlate with a reduction in poor outcome overall (P=0.876) or overall readmission but did reduce early readmission (within the first 48 hours) from 4.5% to 3.6% (P=0.039), while increasing the rate of late readmission (48 hours to 14 days) from 2.7% to 5.8% (P=0.046). CONCLUSION: PIRT facilitates the appropriate targeting of nurse-led inpatient review acutely after ICU discharge but does not reduce hospital mortality or overall readmission rates to ICU. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-12-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5770841/ /pubmed/29282265 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018322 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Intensive Care
Fabes, Jez
Seligman, William
Barrett, Carolyn
McKechnie, Stuart
Griffiths, John
Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK
title Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK
title_full Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK
title_fullStr Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK
title_full_unstemmed Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK
title_short Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK
title_sort does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? a prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the uk
topic Intensive Care
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770841/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29282265
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018322
work_keys_str_mv AT fabesjez doestheimplementationofanovelintensivecaredischargeriskscoreandnurseledinpatientreviewtoolimproveoutcomeaprospectivecohortstudyintwointensivecareunitsintheuk
AT seligmanwilliam doestheimplementationofanovelintensivecaredischargeriskscoreandnurseledinpatientreviewtoolimproveoutcomeaprospectivecohortstudyintwointensivecareunitsintheuk
AT barrettcarolyn doestheimplementationofanovelintensivecaredischargeriskscoreandnurseledinpatientreviewtoolimproveoutcomeaprospectivecohortstudyintwointensivecareunitsintheuk
AT mckechniestuart doestheimplementationofanovelintensivecaredischargeriskscoreandnurseledinpatientreviewtoolimproveoutcomeaprospectivecohortstudyintwointensivecareunitsintheuk
AT griffithsjohn doestheimplementationofanovelintensivecaredischargeriskscoreandnurseledinpatientreviewtoolimproveoutcomeaprospectivecohortstudyintwointensivecareunitsintheuk