Outcomes in Medical Intensive Care Patients Housed in Geographically Distant Units

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 1471-1475
Author(s):  
Michael H. Lazar ◽  
Eric Espinoza Moscoso ◽  
Jeffrey H. Jennings

Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine whether in patients admitted to a medical intensive care unit (ICU) service there are outcome differences between those in a medical ICU bed (“home”) and a geographically distant subspecialty ICU bed (“overflow”). Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 4091 patients admitted to a medical ICU of a large tertiary-care urban teaching hospital. Depending on bed availability, some patients were housed in surgical or cardiac subspecialty ICUs while still being cared for by the primary medical ICU service. We assessed the association of these overflow patients with readmission rates and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS). Potential differences in care was assessed by measuring the number of central line days, urinary catheter days, and ventilator days. Results: Of the 4091 consecutive patients admitted to the medical ICU, 362 (9%) were housed in an overflow ICU and 3729 (91%) were home patients. There was no difference in demographics, patient characteristics, ICU admission diagnosis, or risk of mortality between the 2 groups. Compared to home patients, overflow patients had a higher rate of readmission to the ICU (10.5% vs 6.63% respectively P = .006), a slightly shorter ICU LOS (median 2 [interquartile range, IQR: 1-4] days versus home group of 2 [IQR: 1-5] days; P = .001), and a slightly longer hospital LOS (overflow 7 [IQR: 4-17] days vs home 7 [IQR: 4-13] days, P = .001). There was no differences in number of central venous catheter days, urinary catheter days, ventilator days, or mortality. Conclusions: Medical ICU patients who are housed in ICUs geographically distant from the primary team’s location have increased morbidity when compared to patients admitted to the home ICU. However, there are no differences in number of central venous catheter days, urinary catheter days, ventilator days, or mortality.

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 373
Author(s):  
Jorge Rodrigues ◽  
Andrea Dias ◽  
Guiomar Oliveira ◽  
José Farela Neves

<p><strong>Introduction:</strong> To determine the central-line associated bloodstream infection rate after implementation of central venous catheter-care practice bundles and guidelines and to compare it with the previous central-line associated bloodstream infection rate.<br /><strong>Material and Methods:</strong> A prospective, longitudinal, observational descriptive study with an exploratory component was performed in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit during five months. The universe was composed of every child admitted to Pediatric Intensive Care Unit who inserted a central venous catheter. A comparative study with historical controls was performed to evaluate the result of the intervention (group 1 <em>versus</em> group 2).<br /><strong>Results:</strong> Seventy five children were included, with a median age of 23 months: 22 (29.3%) newborns; 28 (37.3%) with recent surgery and 32 (43.8%) with underlying illness. A total of 105 central venous catheter were inserted, the majority a single central venous catheter (69.3%), with a mean duration of 6.8 ± 6.7 days. The most common type of central venous catheter was the short-term, non-tunneled central venous catheter (45.7%), while the subclavian and brachial flexure veins were the most frequent insertion sites (both 25.7%). There were no cases of central-line associated bloodstream infection reported during this study. Comparing with historical controls (group 1), both groups were similar regarding age, gender, department of origin and place of central venous catheter insertion. In the current study (group 2), the median length of stay was higher, while the mean duration of central venous catheter (excluding peripherally inserted central line) was similar in both groups. There were no statistical differences regarding central venous catheter caliber and number of lumens. Fewer children admitted to Pediatric Intensive Care Unit had central venous catheter inserted in group 2, with no significant difference between single or multiple central venous catheter.<br /><strong>Discussion:</strong> After multidimensional strategy implementation there was no reported central-line associated bloodstream infection<br /><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Efforts must be made to preserve the same degree of multidimensional prevention, in order to confirm the effective reduction of the central-line associated bloodstream infection rate and to allow its maintenance.</p>


2011 ◽  
Vol 77 (8) ◽  
pp. 1038-1042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason W. Smith ◽  
Michael Egger ◽  
Glen Franklin ◽  
Brian Harbrecht ◽  
J. David Richardson

Blood stream infections in the critically ill are a common cause of morbidity. Strict adherence to sterile technique can reduce central line-associated blood stream infections (CLBSIs) and has become a quality improvement measure. We did a retrospective review of 6,014 trauma admissions representing 10,370 catheter days. CLBSI was defined as a positive blood culture with central venous access without evidence of other infectious sources. Thirty-five CLBSIs were identified in the study period (3.26/1,000 line days). The average Injury Severity Score was 32, the average intensive care unit stay was 24 days, and the average overall length of stay was 34 days, which is higher than that of nonCLBSI patients. In 25/35 cases, there was a break in sterile technique during central venous catheter placement (71%). Of the 25 cases, 16 of them were performed in the intensive care unit (64%), five in the operating room (20%), and four in the emergency department (16%). Twenty of the 35 patients with CLBSI (57%) had a total of 24 infections, a 2-fold increase in infectious complications for a given Injury Severity Score. Seventeen (17) of the 25 “dirty” central lines (68%) were changed within 24 hours in an effort to reduce the risk of CLBSI without success. A large percentage of CLBSI can be traced to the initial placement of a central venous line under less than ideal sterile technique. Changing a line within 24 hours may not be sufficient to reduce the risk of CLBSI. Every effort should be made to adhere to proper sterile technique while placing central venous catheter.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document