Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 22, Issue 7, pp 664–669 | Cite as

The importance of technology for achieving superior outcomes from intensive care

  • P. G. Bastos
  • W. A. Knaus
  • J. E. Zimmerman
  • A. MagalhãesJr
  • X. Sun
  • D. P. Wagner
  • The Brazil APACHE III Study Group



To test the hypothesis that technology availability, staffing, and diagnostic diversity in an intensive care unit (ICU) are associated with the ability to decrease hospital mortality.


Prospective multicenter descriptive cohort study.


Ten Brazilian medical-surgical ICUs.


1734 consecutive adult ICU admissions.

Measurements and results

We recorded t the amount of technology, number of diagnoses, and availability of nurses at each ICU. We also used demographic, clinical and physiologic information for an average of 173 admissions to each ICU to calculate standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for each ICU. The mean SMR for the ten ICUs was 1.67 (range 1.01–2.30). A greater availability of ICU equipment and services was significantly (p<0.001) associated with a lower SMR.


The ability of Brazilian ICUs to reduce hospital mortality is associated with the amount of technology available in these units.

Key Words

Intensive care Outcome and process assessment (health care) Probability models Quality of health care Resource allocation Organization and administration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE, Draper EA (1993) Variations in mortality and length of stay in intensive care units. Ann Intern Med 118: 753–761Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pollack MM, Getson PR, Ruttimann VE, Steinhart CM, Kanter RK, Katz RW, Zucker AR, Glass NL, Spohn WA, Fuhrman BP, Wilkinson JD (1987) Efficiency of intensive care: a comparative analysis of eight pediatric intensive care units. JAMA 258: 1481–1486Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rapoport J, Teres D, Lemeshow S, Gehlbach (1994) A method for assessing the clinical performance of intensive care units: a multicenter inception cohort study. Crit Care Med 22: 1385–1391Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boyd O, Grounds RM (1993) Physiologic scoring systems and audit. Lancet 341: 1573–1574Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pollack MM, Ruttimann UE, Getson PR and Members of the Multi-Institutional Study Group (1987) Accurate prediction of the outcome of pediatric intensive care. N Engl J Med 316: 134–139Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Zimmerman JE, Bergner M, Bastos PG, Sirio CA, Murphy DJ, Lotring T, Damiano A, Harrell FE (1991) The APACHE III prognostic system: risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest 100: 1619–1636Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lemeshow S, Teres D, Klar J, Avrunin JS, Gehlbach SH, Rappaport J (1993) Mortality probability models (MPM II) based on an international cohort of intensive care unit patients. JAMA 270: 2478–2486Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F (1993) A new simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA 270: 2957–2963Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shortell SM, Zimmerman JE, Rousseau DM, Gillies RR, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Knaus WA, Duffy J (1994) The performance of intensive care units: does good management make a difference? Med Care 32: 508–525Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zimmerman JE, Shortell SM, Rousseau DM, Duffy J, Gillies RR, Knaus WA, Devers K, Wagner DP, Draper EA (1993) Improving intensive care: observations based on organizational case studies in nine intensive care units: a prospective multicenter study. Crit Care Med 21: 1443–1451Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boyd O, Grounds M (1994) Can standardized mortality ratio be used to compare quality of intensive care unit performance Crit Care Med 22: 1706Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bastos PG, Sun X, Wagner DP, Knaus WA, Zimmerman JE and The Brazil APACHE III Study Group (1996) Application of the APACHE III prognostic system in Brazilian intensive care units: a prospective multicenter study. Intensive Care Med 22: 564–570Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Members of the Consensus Panel (1983) NIH consensus development conference on critical care. Crit Care Med 11: 466–469Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joint Commission for Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (1988) Accreditation manual for hospitals. JCAHCO, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Task Force on Guidelines, Society of Critical Care Medicine (1988) Recommendations for services and personnel for delivery of care in a critical care setting. Crit Care Med 16: 809–811Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Banta HD (1986) Medical technology and developing countries: the case of Brazil. Int J Health Serv 16: 363–373Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Perry S, Marx ES (1992) What technologies for health care in developing countries? World Health Forum 13: 356–361Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frisho-Lima P, Gurman G, Schapira A, Porath A (1994) Rationing critical care—what happens to patients who are not admitted? Theor Surg 9: 208–211Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bennett CL, Garfinkle JB, Greenfield S, Draper D, Rogers W, Mathews WC, Kanouse DE (1989) The relation between hospital experience and in-hospital mortality for patients with AIDS-related PCP. JAMA 261: 2975–2979Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farley DE, Ozminkowski RJ (1992) Volume-outcome relationships and inhospital mortality: the effect of changes in volume over time. Med Care 30: 77–94Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hannan EL, Kilburn H, Bernard H, O'Donnell JF, Lukacik G, Shields EP (1991) Coronary artery bypass surgery: the relationship between inhospital mortality rate and surgical volume after controlling for clinical risk factors. Med Care 29: 1094–1107Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park RE, Brook RH, Kosecoff J, Keesey J, Rubenstein L, Keeler E (1990) Explaining variations in hospital death rates: randomness, severity of illness, quality of care. JAMA 264: 484–490Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luft HS, Garnick DW, Mark PH, Peltzman DJ, Phibbs CS, Lichtenberg E, McPhee SJ (1990) Does quality influence choice of hospital. JAMA 163: 2899–2906Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Knaus WA (1992) Methodologic studies on APACHE III: technical report. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Grant No. HS05787, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. G. Bastos
    • 1
    • 2
  • W. A. Knaus
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. E. Zimmerman
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. MagalhãesJr
    • 1
    • 2
  • X. Sun
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. P. Wagner
    • 1
    • 2
  • The Brazil APACHE III Study Group
  1. 1.Hospital de IpanemaRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.ICU Research UnitThe George Washington University Medical CenterWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations