Patient Outcomes and Unit Composition With Transition to a High-Intensity ICU Staffing Model: A Before-and-After Study. (6th February 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Proper, Jennifer L.; Wacker, David A.; Shaker, Salma; Heisdorffer, Jamie; Shaker, Rami M.; Shiue, Larissa T.; Pendleton, Kathryn M.; Siegel, Lianne K.; Reilkoff, Ronald A.
• Is Part Of: Critical care explorations. Volume 5:Number 2(2023)
• Page Start: e0864
• Publication Date: 2023-02-06
• Subjects: hospital mortality -- intensive care unit -- intensive care unit triage -- intensivist staffing -- length of stay
• DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000864
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2639-8028

Abstract

Abstract : IMPORTANCE: Provider staffing models for ICUs are generally based on pragmatic necessities and historical norms at individual institutions. A better understanding of the role that provider staffing models play in determining patient outcomes and optimizing use of ICU resources is needed. OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of transitioning from a low- to high-intensity intensivist staffing model on patient outcomes and unit composition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective observational before-and-after study of adult ICU patients admitted to a single community hospital ICU before (October 2016–May 2017) and after (June 2017–November 2017) the transition to a high-intensity ICU staffing model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), and unit composition characteristics including type (e.g., medical, surgical) and purpose (ICU-specific intervention vs close monitoring only) of admission. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, 1, 219 subjects were included (779 low-intensity, 440 high-intensity). In multivariable analysis, the transition to a high-intensity staffing model was not associated with a decrease in 30-day (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61–1.34; p = 0.62) or in-hospital (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.57–1.38; p = 0.60) mortality, nor ICU LOS. However, the proportion of patients admitted to the ICU without an ICU-specific need did decrease under the high-intensity staffing model (27.2% low-intensity to 17.5% high-intensity; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Multivariable analysis showed no association between transition to a high-intensity ICU staffing model and mortality or LOS outcomes; however, the proportion of patients admitted without an ICU-specific need decreased under the high-intensity model. Further research is needed to determine whether a high-intensity staffing model may lead to more efficient ICU bed usage.