Comparison of short-term clinical postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy: Intensive care unit versus the ward high-dependency unit

Patients after lung resection heading to the high-dependency unit: a cost-effectiveness study for managing lung cancer patients

Background

Recently, most thoracic surgery units allocate patients post lung resection to high-dependency units (HDU) rather than the old trend of intensive care units (ITU). The aim of the study is to assess the safety and efficacy of such a policy. We compared a single group of patients who underwent lobectomies who were admitted to ITU before March 2011 and patients whom their destination was to HDU after that date. Preoperative factors and postoperative outcomes were compared.

Results

A total of 408 patients were studied, 203 post-lobectomy patients were admitted routinely to ITU before March 2011, while 205 patients were admitted to HDU after that date. The mean postoperative length of stay in ITU was 1.2 days while in HDU was 1.1 days. In-hospital mortality for the ITU group was 2.5% (n = 5) while in the HDU group was 1.4% (n = 3) (p = 0.43). ITU readmission was observed in 6.5% (n = 13) in the ITU group and 4.3% (n = 9) in the HDU group (p = 0.31). Total complications were present in 39% in the ITU group and 33% in the HDU group (p = 0.16). The total estimated cost of one ITU day per patient is 850 GBP in comparison with 430 GBP for the HDU group (p = 0.007). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the HDU stay per year was US $32.130/QALY.

Conclusion

The high-dependency unit is a safe destination for post-lobectomy patients. The same concept may apply to all thoracotomy patients. Hospitals could adopt such a policy which offers a better financial option without jeopardizing the level of patient care or outcome.

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Surgical Special Care Units on Patient Outcomes and Health Care Resource Utilization

Perioperative intermediate care units (termed surgical special care units) have been widely implemented across health systems because they are believed to improve surveillance and management of high-risk surgical patients. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review to investigate the effects of a 3-level model of perioperative care delivery (ie, ward, surgical special care unit, or intensive care unit) compared to a 2-level model of care (ie, ward, intensive care unit) on postoperative outcomes. Our protocol was registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42015025155). Randomized controlled studies and nonrandomized comparator studies were included. We performed a systematic search of Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and the Cochrane library (inception - 11/2017). The primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes included length of stay and hospital costs. We identified 1995 citations with our search, and 21 studies met eligibility criteria (2 randomized controlled studies and 19 nonrandomized comparator studies; 44,134 patients in total). Surgical special care units were characterized by continuous monitoring (12 studies), the absence of mechanical ventilation (8 studies), nurse-to-patient ratios (range, 1:2-1:4), and number of beds (median: 5; range: 3-33). Thirteen studies reported on mortality. Notable findings included no observed difference in overall in-hospital mortality, but an apparent increase in intensive care unit mortality in a 3-level model of care. This may reflect a decanting of lower acuity patients from the intensive care unit to the surgical special care unit. No significant difference was found in hospital length of stay; however, 2 studies demonstrated reductions in hospital costs with the implementation of a surgical special care unit. Significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded pooled analysis. Given the prevalence of surgical special care units, the results of our review suggest that additional methodologically rigorous investigations are needed to understand the effect of these units on the surgical population.

Carotid endarterectomy: What difference does a clinical protocol make?

BACKGROUND

The initial eight hours after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are crucial to patient outcome as many potential complications can occur during this period. Hypotension is one of the most common issues observed after patients have returned to the surgical ward. Postoperative management of patients undergoing CEA varies between facilities, with reported direct intensive care unit or surgical high dependence unit admission. Patients that underwent a CEA procedure at the study hospital were monitored in the Recovery Unit for a minimum of four hours before being transferred to the surgical ward. Episodes of hypotension, on return to the surgical ward, were one of the main issues identified. This observation resulted in revision of the CEA management policy with collaboration from all specialties involved in the care of patients undergoing a CEA. The aim of this study was to compare whether there was any difference in short-term clinical outcomes between preupdate and postupdate of the carotid management policy in a tertiary referral hospital in New South Wales.

METHODOLOGY

Retrospective review of health care records was undertaken for the following two time intervals: prepolicy change from July 2008 to June 2009; postpolicy change from June 2011 to May 2012. Hypotension was defined as a systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg. State SE 12.1 was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

After assessing for potential confounding factors-such as postoperative heart rate, risk factors, gender, and age-patients from the postpolicy change group were less likely to receive vasoactive medications to manage blood pressure deviation (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.91; P = 0.026), the odds of receiving vasoactive medications was 0.33 times lower than that of the pre-policy change group patients, and is 95% confident that the true association lies between 0.12 and 0.91 in the underlying population. Over 90% of intensive care unit admission was avoided in patients from the postpolicy change group with estimated cost saving of $807 Australian dollars per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The study hospital postoperative carotid surgery management policy has driven practice change with an extended Recovery Unit observation. This is a cost effective and safer management method. The Clinical Nurse Consultant was essential for clinical policy development, implementation, and evaluation.

Carotid artery endarterectomy: a multidisciplinary approach to improving resource utilization and quality assurance

An estimated 780,000 people in the United States have a stroke each year. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the most frequently performed surgical procedure to prevent the occurrence of stroke. Over the past several years, physicians, nurses, and allied healthcare workers have been challenged to perform this operation in a cost-effective manner without compromising clinical outcomes. At Maine Medical Center (MMC), Portland, Maine, an average of 250 CEAs are performed annually. As part of a quality-assurance initiative, MMC key stakeholders redesigned the care of patients undergoing CEA surgery. A critical pathway supported by a computerized order set was implemented; standardized discharge instructions and a patient teaching brochure were developed. A patient flow algorithm allowing select patients to bypass the intermediate care unit and transfer directly from the post-anesthesia care unit to a non-telemetry surgical bed was instituted. From January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011, 467 chart audits were completed on 100% of CEA surgeries (cases with concomitant procedures excluded) using the Vascular Study Group of New England data collection form. Data analyzed supports the practice changes that were instituted. Allowing patients to be admitted to a non-telemetry surgical unit following CEA has resulted in significant cost savings and increased the availability of intermediate care beds to higher acuity patients without negatively affecting patient outcomes.