A revised method to assess intensive care unit clinical performance and resource utilization*
- 1 August 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Critical Care Medicine
- Vol. 35 (8) , 1853-1862
- https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000275272.57237.53
Abstract
In 1994, Rapoport et al. published a two-dimensional graphical tool for benchmarking intensive care units (ICUs) using a Mortality Probability Model (MPM0-II) to assess clinical performance and a Weighted Hospital Days scale (WHD-94) to assess resource utilization. MPM0-II and WHD-94 do not calibrate on contemporary data, giving users of the graph an inflated assessment of their ICU's performance. MPM0-II was recently updated (MPM0-III) but not the model for predicting resource utilization. The objective was to develop a new WHD model and revised Rapoport-Teres graph. Multicenter cohort study. One hundred thirty-five ICUs in 98 hospitals participating in Project IMPACT. Patients were 124,855 MPM0-II eligible Project IMPACT patients treated between March 2001 and June 2004. None. WHD was redefined as 4 units for the first day of each ICU stay, 2.5 units for each additional ICU day, and 1 unit for each non-ICU day after the first ICU discharge. Stepwise linear regression was used to construct a model to predict ICU-specific log average WHD from 39 candidate variables available in Project IMPACT. The updated WHD model has four independent variables: percent of patients dying in the hospital, percent of unscheduled surgical patients, percent of patients on mechanical ventilation within 1 hr of ICU admission, and percent discharged from the ICU to an external post-acute care facility. The first three variables increase average WHD and the last decreases it. The new model has good performance (R = 0.47) and, when combined with MPM0-II, provides a well-calibrated Rapoport-Teres graph. A new WHD model has been derived from a large, contemporary critical care database and, when used with MPM0-III, updates a popular method for benchmarking ICUs. Project IMPACT participants will likely perceive a decline in their ICU performance coordinates due to the recalibrated graph and should instead focus on their unit's performance relative to their peers.Keywords
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- Assessing contemporary intensive care unit outcome: An updated Mortality Probability Admission Model (MPM0-III)*Critical Care Medicine, 2007
- Daily cost of an intensive care unit day: The contribution of mechanical ventilation*Critical Care Medicine, 2005
- Early indicators of prolonged intensive care unit stay: Impact of illness severity, physician staffing, and pre–intensive care unit length of stayCritical Care Medicine, 2003
- A prospective study of prolonged stay in the intensive care unit: predictors and impact on resource utilizationInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2002
- Rating the quality of intensive care units: Is it a function of the intensive care unit scoring system?*Critical Care Medicine, 2002
- An update on cost-effectiveness analysis in critical careCurrent Opinion in Critical Care, 2002
- What’s in a day? Determining intensive care unit length of stayCritical Care Medicine, 2000
- Predicting Survival, Length of Stay, and Cost in the Surgical Intensive Care UnitThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 1998
- The Effect of Managed Care on ICU Length of StayPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1996
- A method for assessing the clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of intensive care unitsCritical Care Medicine, 1994