A clinician's guide to the use of quality terminology. Working Group on Quality Improvement of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

[Cost analysis as a tool for assessing the efficacy of intensive care units]

BACKGROUND

The German "Hospital Structure Act" intends to align the state hospital planning on quality criteria. Within this process cost-utility analyses (CUAs) shall be used to assess the efficacy of medical care. To be objective, CUAs of intensive care units (ICUs) require standardization (adjustment) of costs. The present study analyzed the extent to which treatment costs are related to patient-specific baseline variables (such as type and severity of the primary disease).

METHODS

From 2000-2004, a bottom-up procedure was used to quantify total costs on 14 ICUs in nine German university hospitals. Results were combined with demographic data, and data indicating type (ICD-10 codes) and severity (ICU scoring systems) of the primary disease at ICU admission. Various statistical models were tested to identify that which best described the associations between baseline variables and costs.

RESULTS

In all, 3803 critically ill patients could be examined. The median of treatment costs per patient was 3199 € (IQR 1768-6659 €). No model allowed an acceptably precise adjustment of costs; the estimated mean absolute prognostic error was at least 3860 € (mean relative prognostic error 66%), when we tested an Extreme Gradient Boosting Model.

CONCLUSION

Instruments which are currently available (cost adjustment based on patient-specific baseline variables) do not allow a standardization of costs, and an objective CUA of ICUs. Factors unknown at baseline may cause a large portion of treatment costs.

Bedside calculation of energy expenditure does not guarantee adequate caloric prescription in long-term mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a quality control study

Nutrition is essential in critically ill patients, but translating caloric prescriptions into adequate caloric intake remains challenging. Caloric prescriptions (P), effective intake (I), and caloric needs (N), calculated with modified Harris-Benedict formulas, were recorded during seven consecutive days in ventilated patients. Adequacy of prescription was estimated by P/N ratio. I/P ratio assessed accuracy of translating a prescription into administered feeding. I/N ratio compared delivered calories with theoretical caloric needs. Fifty patients were prospectively studied in a mixed medicosurgical ICU in a teaching hospital. Basal and total energy expenditure were, respectively, 1361 ± 171 kcal/d and 1649 ± 233 kcal/d. P and I attained 1536 ± 602 kcal/d and 1424 ± 572 kcal/d, respectively. 24.6% prescriptions were accurate, and 24.3% calories were correctly administered. Excessive calories were prescribed in 35.4% of patients, 27.4% being overfed. Caloric needs were underestimated in 40% prescriptions, with 48.3% patients underfed. Calculating caloric requirements by a modified standard formula covered energy needs in only 25% of long-term mechanically ventilated patients, leaving many over- or underfed. Nutritional imbalance mainly resulted from incorrect prescription. Failure of “simple” calculations to direct caloric prescription in these patients suggests systematic use of more reliable methods, for example, indirect calorimetry.

Recommendations for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: a consensus statement by the American College [corrected] of Critical Care Medicine

BACKGROUND

These recommendations have been developed to improve the care of intensive care unit (ICU) patients during the dying process. The recommendations build on those published in 2003 and highlight recent developments in the field from a U.S. perspective. They do not use an evidence grading system because most of the recommendations are based on ethical and legal principles that are not derived from empirically based evidence.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Family-centered care, which emphasizes the importance of the social structure within which patients are embedded, has emerged as a comprehensive ideal for managing end-of-life care in the ICU. ICU clinicians should be competent in all aspects of this care, including the practical and ethical aspects of withdrawing different modalities of life-sustaining treatment and the use of sedatives, analgesics, and nonpharmacologic approaches to easing the suffering of the dying process. Several key ethical concepts play a foundational role in guiding end-of-life care, including the distinctions between withholding and withdrawing treatments, between actions of killing and allowing to die, and between consequences that are intended vs. those that are merely foreseen (the doctrine of double effect). Improved communication with the family has been shown to improve patient care and family outcomes. Other knowledge unique to end-of-life care includes principles for notifying families of a patient's death and compassionate approaches to discussing options for organ donation. End-of-life care continues even after the death of the patient, and ICUs should consider developing comprehensive bereavement programs to support both families and the needs of the clinical staff. Finally, a comprehensive agenda for improving end-of-life care in the ICU has been developed to guide research, quality improvement efforts, and educational curricula.

CONCLUSIONS

End-of-life care is emerging as a comprehensive area of expertise in the ICU and demands the same high level of knowledge and competence as all other areas of ICU practice.

Intensive care unit quality improvement: A “how-to” guide for the interdisciplinary team*

OBJECTIVE

Quality improvement is an important activity for all members of the interdisciplinary critical care team. Although an increasing number of resources are available to guide clinicians, quality improvement activities can be overwhelming. Therefore, the Society of Critical Care Medicine charged this Outcomes Task Force with creating a "how-to" guide that focuses on critical care, summarizes key concepts, and outlines a practical approach to the development, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance of an interdisciplinary quality improvement program in the intensive care unit.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

The task force met in person twice and by conference call twice to write this document. We also conducted a literature search on "quality improvement" and "critical care or intensive care" and searched online for additional resources. DATA SYNTHESIS AND OVERVIEW: We present an overview of quality improvement in the intensive care unit setting and then describe the following steps for initiating or improving an interdisciplinary critical care quality improvement program: a) identify local motivation, support teamwork, and develop strong leadership; b) prioritize potential projects and choose the first target; c) operationalize the measures, build support for the project, and develop a business plan; d) perform an environmental scan to better understand the problem, potential barriers, opportunities, and resources for the project; e) create a data collection system that accurately measures baseline performance and future improvements; f) create a data reporting system that allows clinicians and others to understand the problem; g) introduce effective strategies to change clinician behavior. In addition, we identify four steps for evaluating and maintaining this program: a) determine whether the target is changing with periodic data collection; b) modify behavior change strategies to improve or sustain improvements; c) focus on interdisciplinary collaboration; and d) develop and sustain support from the hospital leadership. We also identify a number of online resources to complement this overview.

CONCLUSIONS

This Society of Critical Care Medicine Task Force report provides an overview for clinicians interested in developing or improving a quality improvement program using a step-wise approach. Success depends not only on committed interdisciplinary work that is incremental and continuous but also on strong leadership. Further research is needed to refine the methods and identify the most cost-effective means of improving the quality of health care received by critically ill patients and their families.

A prospective survey of nutritional support practices in intensive care unit patients: what is prescribed? What is delivered?

OBJECTIVES

To assess the amount of nutrients delivered, prescribed, and required for critically ill patients and to identify the reasons for discrepancies between prescriptions and requirements and between prescriptions and actual delivery of nutrition.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Twelve-bed medical intensive care unit in a university-affiliated general hospital.

PATIENTS

Fifty-one consecutive patients, receiving nutritional support either enterally or intravenously for > or = 2 days. We followed patients for the first 14 days of nutritional delivery.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The amount of calories prescribed and the amount actually delivered were recorded daily and compared with the theoretical energy requirements. A combined regimen of enteral and parenteral nutrition was administered on 58% of the 484 nutrition days analyzed, and 63.5% of total caloric intake was delivered enterally. Seventy-eight percent of the mean caloric amount required was prescribed, and 71% was effectively delivered. The amount of calories actually delivered compared with the amount prescribed was significantly lower in enteral than in parenteral administration (86.8% vs. 112.4%, p < .001). Discrepancies between prescription and delivery of enterally administered nutrients were attributable to interruptions caused by digestive intolerance (27.7%, mean daily wasted volume 641 mL), airway management (30.8%, wasted volume 745 mL), and diagnostic procedures (26.6%, wasted volume 567 mL). Factors significantly associated with a low prescription rate of nutritional support were the administration of vasoactive drugs, central venous catheterization, and the need for extrarenal replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

An inadequate delivery of enteral nutrition and a low rate of nutrition prescription resulted in low caloric intake in our intensive care unit patients. A large volume of enterally administered nutrients was wasted because of inadequate timing in stopping and restarting enteral feeding. The inverse correlation between the prescription rate of nutrition and the intensity of care required suggests that physicians need to pay more attention to providing appropriate nutritional support for the most severely ill patients.