Articles: critical-illness.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
The cost-effectiveness of a special care unit to care for the chronically critically ill.
To assess the relative value of healthcare programs, technologic innovations, and clinical decisions, policymakers are searching for ways to evaluate cost-effectiveness. What constitutes cost-effectiveness and how should it be measured? The authors discuss ways in which the cost-effectiveness of clinical programs can be measured and describes various methods of assessing both costs and effectiveness. Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of a nurse managed special care unit with that of traditional intensive care units illustrates some of these methods.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Patient outcomes for the chronically critically ill: special care unit versus intensive care unit.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a low-technology environment of care and a nurse case management case delivery system (special care unit, SCU) with the traditional high-technology environment (ICU) and primary nursing care delivery system on the patient outcomes of length of stay, mortality, readmission, complications, satisfaction, and cost. A sample of 220 chronically critically ill patients were randomly assigned to either the SCU (n = 145) or the ICU (n = 75). Few significant differences were found between the two groups in length of stay, mortality, or complications. ⋯ The average total cost of delivering care was $5,000 less per patient in the SCU than in the traditional ICU. In addition, the cost to produce a survivor was $19,000 less in the SCU. Results from this 4-year clinical trial demonstrate that nurse case managers in a SCU setting can produce patient outcomes equal to or better than those in the traditional ICU care environment for long-term critically ill patients.
-
Comparative Study
Cardiac output measurement in critically ill patients: comparison of continuous and conventional thermodilution techniques.
The purpose of the study was to compare cardiac output (CO) measurement by continuous (CTD) with that by conventional thermodilution (TD) in critically ill patients. In 19 of 20 critically ill patients requiring a pulmonary artery catheterism, 105 paired CO measurements were performed by both CTD and TD. Regression analysis showed that: CTD CO = 1.18 TD CO - 0.47. ⋯ Bias and limit of agreement were -0.8 and 2.4 L.min-1, respectively. When a Bland and Altman diagram was constructed according to cardiac index ranges, biases were -0.2 and -0.3 and -0.8 L.min-1.m-2 and limits of agreement were 0.3, 0.7 and 1.6 L.min-1.m-2 for low (< 2.5 L.min-1.m-2), normal (between 2.5 and 4.5 L.min-1.m-2) and high (> 4.5 L.min-1.m-2) cardiac indexes, respectively. It is concluded that CTD, compared with TD, is a reliable method of measuring CO, especially when cardiac index is < or = 4.5 L.min-1.m-2.