Garry Ritter

A validated value-based model to improve hospital-wide perioperative outcomes: adaptability to combined medical/surgical inpatient cohorts.

Objectives:Authors hypothesized that building safe hospital systems to improve value-based surgical outcomes is predicated on workflow redesign for dynamic risk stratification, coupled with “real-time” mitigation of risk. We developed a comanagement model for hospitalized surgical cohort, and determined whether this iterative process redesign for surgery will be adaptable to disparate hospital systems and will be beneficial for combined medical/surgical adult inpatients. Context:Concerns about preventable harm in hospitalized patients have generated a plethora of both, process-driven and outcome-based strategies in US Healthcare. Although comparison between hospitals is a common mechanism to drive quality, other innovative approaches are needed for real-time risk mitigation to improve outcomes. Methods:Prospective implementation of Surgical Continuum of Care (SCoC) model in hospitals initially for surgery patients; subsequently Continuum of Care (CoC) for medical/surgical population. Redesign of hospital care delivery model: patient cohorting, floor-based team building, and intensivist/hospitalist staffing of progressive care unit (PCU). Work flow redesign for clinical effectiveness: multidisciplinary team rounds, acuity stratified care rounding based on dynamic risk assessment into a novel HAWK (high risk)/DOVE (low risk) patient grouping, intensivist/hospitalist comanagement of surgical patients, and targeted response. Study:Pre- and postintervention with concurrent cohort control design. Setting:Academic medical centers for SCoC and integrated health system hospital for CoC. Patient Groups:SCoC Pilot Study–Campus A: Preintervention control group 1998–2000, Intervention Group 2001–2004; Campus B: Comparator Control Group 1998–2004.SCoC Validation Study–Campus C: Preintervention Group 2001–2005; Intervention Group 2006–2008. CoC Study–Campus D: Hospital-wide Group 2009. Metrics:Mortality, length of stay (LOS): overall, surgical intensive care unit and PCU, readmission rates, and cost. Case mix index for risk adjustment. Results:Total >100,000 admissions. There was a significant reduction in overall surgical mortality in both, pilot (P < 0.002) and validation (P < 0.02) SCoC studies and overall hospital mortality in the medical/surgical CoC study (risk-adjusted mortality index progressively declined in CoC study from 1.16 pre-CoC to 0.77 six months post-CoC implementation; significant at 75% confidence level). Case mix index was unchanged during study period in each campus. Nested study in validation cohort of hospital-wide versus surgery alone (observed/expected mortality index) demonstrated significant benefit to SCoC in intervention group. The mortality benefit was primarily derived from risk-stratified rounding and actively managing risk prone population in the PCU. Surgical intensive care unit, PCU, and total hospital patient-days significantly decreased in SCoC pilot study (P < 0.05), reflecting enhanced throughput. LOS reduction benefit persisted in SCoC validation and CoC studies. In addition to decreased LOS, cost savings were in PCU (range,

A Comparison of Predictive Outcomes of APACHE II and SAPS II in a Surgical Intensive Care Unit

851,511–2,007,388) and top diagnosis-related groups, for example,

The Effect of Body Mass Index on the Outcome of Critically Ill Surgical Patients

452 K/yr for diagnosis-related group 148. Conclusions:SCoC is patient-centered, outcomes-driven, value-based approach for hospital-wide surgical patient safety. The principles of this value paradigm are adaptable to other hospitals as demonstrated in our longitudinal study in 3 hospital systems, and the initial experience of CoC suggests that this model will have benefit beyond surgical hospital cohort.

Bleeding risk secondary to deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

The Acute Physiologic Score and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and the Simplified Acute Physiologic Scale (SAPS) II are two of the more commonly employed predictors of outcome and performance in the intensive care unit setting. However, controversy persists about whether the scores generated by these systems have similar predictive value. This study compared the predicted mortalities derived from APACHE II and SAPS II and contrasted them to the actual mortality in a surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Data for 1665 patients admitted to the SICU between July 1994 and August 1997 were entered into an SICU computerized database. From recorded demographic, hemodynamic, and laboratory data, APACHE II and SAPS II scores were obtained with corresponding predicted mortalities. Patients were stratified by age into categories of less than and greater than 65 years old. Predicted mortalities by APACHE II and SAPS II were compared for each group. An additional analysis included a comparison of survivors and nonsurvivors. There was no significant difference in predicted mortality between APACHE II and SAPS II in any of the groups. Actual mortality was 30 of 486 (6.2%) in patients less than 65 years of age and 73 of 1179 (6.2%) in patients 65 years of age or greater. The APACHE II and SAPS LI predicted mortalities (mean ± SD) for patients less than 65 years of age were 10.5% ± 10.6% and 10.9% ± 13.3%, respectively (P > .05). The APACHE II and SAPS II predicted mortalities in patients 65 years of age or greater were 19.1% ± 17.8% and 18.7% ± 21.0%, respectively (P > .05). Similarly, when patients were stratified by survival status, no significant difference was present between groups. However, in individual patients, a difference between APACHE II and SAPS II scores was often present. We conclude that although disparities between APACHE II and SAPS II predicted mortalities in individual patients may be significant, APACHE II and SAPS II have similar predictive value in a large SICU patient population. However, both APACHE II and SAPS II systems overestimate mortality in SICU patients. Based on our results, we conclude that either system can be used to measure quality of care in the SICU; however, neither system can be reliably applied to a single patient.

Comparison of Two Rapid Response Teams Models: Reduction of Rapid Response Triggers and Cardiac Arrests by the Continuum of Care Model Compared With Traditional Rapid Response Team

BACKGROUND The incidence of obesity is rising, and an increasing number of obese patients are admitted to surgical intensive care units (SICUs). However, it is not clear whether obesity is an independent risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality in SICU patients. We examined the effect of obesity on morbidity and mortality in patients admitted to the SICU in this study. METHOD We reviewed prospectively acquired SICU data in normal and obese patients with an SICU length of stay >24 hours. Comparability of the groups was assessed using a χ(2) test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate, for categorical variables and analysis of variance (ANOVA) or the Kruskal-Wallis test, as appropriate, for continuous variables. RESULTS Of the 1792 consecutive patients evaluated, 711 had a normal body mass index (BMI), and 993 were either preobese or obese. There was no statistically significant difference across the 5 BMI groups with respect to any of the 3 comorbidity indices (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III [APACHE III], Simplified Acute Physiology Score, or Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score). There was no statistically significant difference in the intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and hospital length of stay or time-to-ICU mortality (log-rank test P = .054) among the 5 BMI groups. A Cox regression analysis and backward elimination algorithm selected APACHE III to be the most important explanatory variable for survival time. CONCLUSION Obesity does not affect the mortality of patients admitted to the SICU. We conclude that obesity cannot be used as an independent predictive mortality outcome variable in patients admitted to the SICU.

Bleeding Risk and Thromboprophylaxis in Neurosurgical Patients after Emergency Procedures

Introduction: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) continue to pose a major burden on the health care system in the United States. The precise timing of anticoagulation initiation in critically ill patients with recent or active lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is not well defined. We set out to study the safety and efficacy of early heparin administration for DVT prophylaxis in these patients. Methods: A review of all patients admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of LGIB over a 13-year period was performed. A total of 60 patients received subcutaneous heparin along with mechanical prophylaxis, whereas 59 patients had intermittent pneumatic compression devices alone. Results: There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between the groups who received heparin and the nonheparin cohort. Neither of the groups developed a DVT or PE during the study period. Patients who received heparin had a median ICU LOS of 3 days, when compared with 2 days for patients who did not receive heparin (P < .0118). There was a significant association between units of blood received during the first 24 hours in the ICU and heparin usage (P < .0229). Those administered heparin received more units (median 3) than those who did not receive heparin (median 2). Conclusions: Administration of subcutaneous heparin increases the transfusion requirements and LOS in ICU patients with LGIB. After 24 hours, however, the blood transfusion requirements are equivalent. DVT prophylaxis in patients with a diagnosis of LGIB should be initiated after 24 hours of ICU admission.

Predictive Factors Associated With the Development of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit

Background. Although rapid response teams (RRTs) decrease in-house cardiac arrests, significant debate exists surrounding their impact on patient outcomes. We have implemented the continuum of care...

Abdominal compartment syndrome in the surgical intensive care unit

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate its safety in the emergency neurosurgicalpopulation at a tertiary hospital center. Methods: Retrospective analyses of prospectively-collected data were performed on patients ad-mitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) after emergency neurosurgical procedure. We examined patient demographic and clinical information, survival outcomes, and rates of heparin induced thrombocytopenia and pulmonary embolism in patients who received subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (SCUFH) compared to those who did not. Results: We identified 223 emergency neurosurgical patients, of which 100 received no anticoagulation (44.84%) and 123 received SCUFH (55.16%). In the SCUFH group, 88 patients received chemoprophylaxis within 24 h and 35 after 24 h. A statistically significant difference was noted with the admission APACHE II score of patients receiving SCUFH to those who did not, but APACHE III and SAPS on admission were shown to have no difference in outcome. Conclusion: Administration of SCUFH in the emergency neurosurgical population does not increase the risk of bleeding post-operatively and continues to be a safe and effective chemoprophylaxis agent against VTE.