Withdrawal of Mechanical Ventilation at a Long Term Acute Care Hospital: Comparison with a Medical Intensive Care Unit.

Objective: To determine whether burdens of chronic comorbid illnesses can predict the clinical course of prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV)patients in a long-term, acute-care hospital (LTACH). Methods: Retrospective study of 866 consecutive PMV patients whose burdens of chronic comorbid illnesses were quantified using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS). Based on increasing CIRS scores, 6 groups were formed and compared: group A (≤25; n = 97), group B (26-28; n = 105), group C (29-31; n = 181), group D (32-34; n = 208), group E (35-37; n = 173), and group F (>37; n = 102). Results: As CIRS scores increased from group A to group F, rates of weaning success, home discharges, and LTACH survival declined progressively from 74% to 17%, 48% to 0%, and 79% to 21%, respectively (all P < .001). Negative correlations between the mean score of each CIRS group and correspondent outcomes also supported patients’ group allocation and an accurate prediction of their clinical course (all P < .01). Long-term survival progressively declined from a median survival time of 38.9 months in group A to 3.2 months in group F ( P < .001). Compared to group A, risk of death was 75% greater in group F ( P = .03). Noteworthy, PMV patients with CIRS score <25 showed greater ability to recover and a low likelihood of becoming chronically critically ill. Diagnostic accuracy of CIRS to predict likelihood of weaning success, home discharges, both LTACH and long-term survival was good (area under the curves ≥0.71; all P <.001). Conclusions: The burden of chronic comorbid illnesses was a strong prognostic indicator of the clinical course of PMV patients. Patients with lower CIRS values showed greater ability to recover and were less likely to become chronically critically ill. Thus, CIRS can be used to help guide clinicians caring for PMV patients in transfer decisions to and from postacute care setting.

Download Full-text

Outcomes of Care Managed by an Acute Care Nurse Practitioner/Attending Physician Team in a Subacute Medical Intensive Care Unit

American Journal of Critical Care ◽

10.4037/ajcc2005.14.2.121 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 121-130 ◽

Cited By ~ 68

Author(s):

Leslie A. Hoffman ◽

Frederick J. Tasota ◽

Thomas G. Zullo ◽

Carmella Scharfenberg ◽

Michael P. Donahoe

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Acute Care ◽

Nurse Practitioners ◽

Nurse Practitioner ◽

Medical Intensive Care Unit ◽

Care Nurse ◽

Medical Intensive Care ◽

Acute Care Nurse Practitioner ◽

Attending Physician

• Background Many academic medical centers employ nurse practitioners as substitutes to provide care normally supplied by house staff.• Objective To compare outcomes in a subacute medical intensive care unit of patients managed by a team consisting of either an acute care nurse practitioner and an attending physician or an attending physician and critical care/pulmonary fellows.• Methods During a 31-month period, in 7-month blocks of time, 526 consecutive patients admitted to the unit for more than 24 hours were managed by one or the other of the teams. Patients managed by the 2 teams were compared for a variety of outcomes.• Results Patients managed by the 2 teams did not differ significantly for any workload, demographic, or medical condition variable. The patients also did not differ in readmission to the high acuity unit (P = .25) or subacute unit (P = .44) within 72 hours of discharge or in mortality with (P = .25) or without (P = .89) treatment limitations. Among patients who had multiple weaning trials, patients managed by the 2 teams did not differ in length of stay in the subacute unit (P = .42), duration of mechanical ventilation (P = .18), weaning status at time of discharge from the unit (P = .80), or disposition (P = .28). Acute Physiology Scores were significantly different over time (P = .046). Patients managed by the fellows had more reintubations (P=.02).• Conclusions In a subacute intensive care unit, management by the 2 teams produced equivalent outcomes.

Download Full-text