Scoring Systems in Critical Care

Author(s):  
Thomas J. Cholis ◽  
Murray M. Pollack
2011 ◽  
pp. 513-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Fisher ◽  
Dermot Burke

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark T. Keegan

Critical care consumes about 4% of national health expenditure and 0.65% of United States gross domestic product. There are approximately 94,000 critical care beds in the United States, and provision of critical care services costs approximately $80 billion per year. The enormous costs and the heterogeneity of critical care have led to scrutiny of patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness by a variety of governmental and nongovernmental organizations; furthermore, individual critical care practitioners and their hospitals should evaluate the care delivered. This review discusses scoring systems in medicine, critical care systems, development, validation, performance, and customization of the models, adult intensive care unit (ICU) prognostic models, model use, limitations, prognostic models in trauma care, perioperative scoring systems, assessment of organ failure, severity of illness and organ dysfunction scoring in children, and future directions. Figures show the distribution of predicted risk of death using two different prediction models among a population of patients who ultimately are observed to either live or die, a comparison of  “expected” deaths (based on the expectation that the predicted probability from the model is correct) to observed deaths within each of the 10 deciles of predicted risk, the importance of disease in the risk of death equation,  and the revised Rapaport-Teres graph for ICUs in the Project IMPACT validation set. Tables list three main ICU prognostic models, study characteristics and performance of the fourth-generation prognostic models, variables included in the fourth-generation prognostic models, potential uses of adult ICU prognostic models, variables included in the calculation of the organ failure scores, and sequential organ failure assessment. This review contains 4 highly rendered figures, 6 tables, and 293 references


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. e105-e107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonny R. Stephens ◽  
Richard Stümpfle ◽  
Parind Patel ◽  
Stephen Brett ◽  
Robert Broomhead ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Philip Barclay ◽  
Helen Scholefield

The development of maternal critical care is essential in reducing morbidity and mortality due to a substandard level of care. The level of critical care should depend upon the patient’s severity of illness, not their physical location. Escalation to level 3 (intensive) care is uncommon in pregnancy, with a median admission rate of 2.7 per 1000 births, mainly due to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and haemorrhage. Maternal ‘near misses’ occur more frequently, with 6.5 per 1000 births meeting Mantel’s criteria, of which 85% is due to major obstetric haemorrhage. The admission rate to maternal high dependency units (level 2 care) varies from 1% to 5%. Acute physiological scoring systems have been found to be reliable when applied to parturients receiving level 3 care but overestimate mortality. Maternal early warning scores have been derived from simplified versions of these systems, with allowance made for physiological changes seen in pregnancy. There are many different maternity scoring systems in use throughout England and Wales. All share the same principle that parameters should be recorded regularly during the hospital stay, with deviations from normal quantified, recorded, and acted upon. A chain of response is then required to ensure that suitably qualified staff, possessing appropriate critical care competencies, attend in a timely fashion. Appropriate resources must be available with equipment readily to hand and suitably trained staff so that invasive monitoring can be used. Clear admission criteria are required for level 2 care within the delivery suite and escalation to level 3, with suitable arrangements for transfer.


Author(s):  
Carl Waldmann ◽  
Andrew Rhodes ◽  
Neil Soni ◽  
Jonathan Handy

This chapter discusses ICU organization and management and includes discussion on consent on the ICU, rationing in critical care, ICU layout, medical staffing, ICU staffing (both nursing and staffing for supporting professions), fire safety in the ICU, legal issues and the Coroner, patient safety, Severity of Illness Scoring systems, comparison of ICUs, critical care disaster planning, health technology assessment, transfer of the critically ill patient, aeromedical evacuation, outreach and medical emergency teams, critical care follow-up, rehabilitation, and managing antibiotic resistance.


2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 359-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shang A. Loh ◽  
Caron B. Rockman ◽  
Christine Chung ◽  
Thomas S. Maldonado ◽  
Mark A. Adelman ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristin M. Kim ◽  
Sandro Cinti ◽  
Steven Gay ◽  
Susan Goold ◽  
Andrew Barnosky ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTObjective: The novel H1N1 influenza pandemic renewed the concern that during a severe pandemic illness, critical care and mechanical ventilation resources will be inadequate to meet the needs of patients. Several published protocols address the need to triage patients for access to ventilator resources. However, to our knowledge, none of these has addressed the pediatric populations.Methods: We used a systematic review of the pediatric critical care literature to evaluate pediatric critical care prognosis and multisystem organ failure scoring systems. We used multiple search engines, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, using a search for terms and key words including including multiple organ failure, multiple organ dysfunction, PELOD, PRISM III, pediatric risk of mortality score, pediatric logistic organ dysfunction, pediatric index of mortality pediatric multiple organ dysfunction score, “child+multiple organ failure + scoring system. ” Searches were conducted in the period January 2010-February 2010.Results: Of the 69 papers reviewed, 22 were used. Five independently derived scoring systems were evaluated for use in a respiratory pandemic ventilator triage protocol. The Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD) scoring system was the most appropriate for use in such a triage protocol.Conclusions: We present a pediatric-specific ventilator triage protocol using the PELOD scoring system to complement the NY State adult triage protocol. Further evaluation of pediatric scoring systems is imperative to ensure appropriate triage of pediatric patients.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:131–137)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document