Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK
  1. Jez Fabes1,
  2. William Seligman2,
  3. Carolyn Barrett3,
  4. Stuart McKechnie3,
  5. John Griffiths3
  1. 1Department of Anaesthesia, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Anaesthesia, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  3. 3Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jez Fabes; jfabes{at}doctors.org.uk

Abstract

Objective To develop a clinical prediction model for poor outcome after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge in a large observational data set and couple this to an acute post-ICU ward-based review tool (PIRT) to identify high-risk patients at the time of ICU discharge and improve their acute ward-based review and outcome.

Design Retrospective patient cohort of index ICU admissions between June 2006 and October 2011 receiving routine inpatient review. Prospective cohort between March 2012 and March 2013 underwent risk scoring (PIRT) which subsequently guided inpatient ward-based review.

Setting Two UK adult ICUs.

Participants 4212 eligible discharges from ICU in the retrospective development cohort and 1028 patients included in the prospective intervention cohort.

Interventions Multivariate analysis was performed to determine factors associated with poor outcome in the retrospective cohort and used to generate a discharge risk score. A discharge and daily ward-based review tool incorporating an adjusted risk score was introduced. The prospective cohort underwent risk scoring at ICU discharge and inpatient review using the PIRT.

Outcomes The primary outcome was the composite of death or readmission to ICU within 14 days of ICU discharge following the index ICU admission.

Results PIRT review was achieved for 67.3% of all eligible discharges and improved the targeting of acute post-ICU review to high-risk patients. The presence of ward-based PIRT review in the prospective cohort did not correlate with a reduction in poor outcome overall (P=0.876) or overall readmission but did reduce early readmission (within the first 48 hours) from 4.5% to 3.6% (P=0.039), while increasing the rate of late readmission (48 hours to 14 days) from 2.7% to 5.8% (P=0.046).

Conclusion PIRT facilitates the appropriate targeting of nurse-led inpatient review acutely after ICU discharge but does not reduce hospital mortality or overall readmission rates to ICU.

  • intensive care
  • outreach
  • follow-up
  • risk prediction

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors JF and JG conceived the study and developed the PIRT. CB and WS collected the data and provided feedback on the development and implementation of the PIRT. JF and WS analysed the data with additional expertise provided by SM. JF and WS prepared the manuscript which was subsequently reviewed by JG, SM and CB.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Need for ethical approval was waived by the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust Clinical Audit Unit as this project constitutes retrospective analysis of routinely obtained data and service evaluation.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement Extra data can be accessed via the Dryad Data Repository at http://datadryad.org/ with the doi: 10.5061/dryad.7rf7q.