Introducing Critical Care Outreach: a ward-randomised trial of phased introduction in a general hospital
- 1.9k Downloads
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of introducing a critical care outreach service on in-hospital mortality and length of stay in a general acute hospital.
A pragmatic ward-randomised trial design was used, with intervention introduced to all wards in sequence. No blinding was possible.
Sixteen adult wards in an 800-bed general hospital in the north of England.
Patients and participants
All admissions to the 16 surgical, medical and elderly care wards during 32-week study period were included (7450 patients in total, of whom 2903 were eligible for the primary comparison).
Essential elements of the Critical Care Outreach service introduced during the study were a nurse-led team of nurses and doctors experienced in critical care, a 24-h service, emphasis on education, support and practical help for ward staff.
Measurements and results
The main outcome measures were in-hospital mortality and length of stay. Outreach intervention reduced in-hospital mortality compared with control (two-level odds ratio: 0.52 (95% CI 0.32–0.85). A possible increased length of stay associated with outreach was not fully supported by confirmatory and sensitivity analyses.
The study suggests outreach reduces mortality in general hospital wards. It may also increase length of stay, but our findings on this are equivocal.
KeywordsCritical care Intensive care Hospital mortality Length of stay
We thank the following people for their support for this study: K. Martin, K. Harrison, H. Paw, G. Cundill, M. Reeder, I. Woods, C. Barr, M. Clubbs, J. Miles, M. Yang, G. Dunn and E. Grant. This work was supported by the York Research Innovation Fund (York Hospitals NHS Trust).
- 1.Audit Commission (1999) Critical to success: the place of efficient and effective critical care services within the acute hospital. Audit Commission, London, p 79Google Scholar
- 2.Department of Health (2000) Comprehensive critical care: a review of adult critical care services. Department of Health, London, p 15Google Scholar
- 3.Smith G (2000) To MET or not to MET—that is the question. Care Crit Ill 16:8–9Google Scholar
- 8.Sax FL, Charlson ME (1987) Medical patients at high risk for catastrophic deterioration. Crit Care Med 15:510–515Google Scholar
- 11.McQuillan P, Pilkington S, Allan A, Taylor B, Short A, Morgan G, Nielsen M, Barrett D, Smith G (1998) Confidential inquiry into quality of care before admission to intensive care. Br Med J 316:1853–1858Google Scholar
- 12.Hourihan F, Bishop G, Hillman KM, Daffurn K, Lee A (1995) The medical emergency team: a new strategy to identify and intervene in high-risk patients. Clin Intensive Care 6:269–272Google Scholar
- 13.Daly FS, Sidney KL, Fatovich DM (1998) The Medical Emergency Team (MET): a model for the district general hospital. Aust NZ J Med 28:795–798Google Scholar
- 14.Buist MD, Moore GE, Bernard SA, Waxman BP, Anderson JN, Nguyen TV (2002) Effects of a medical emergency team on reduction of incidence of and mortality from unexpected cardiac arrests in hospital: preliminary study. Br Med J 324:1–6Google Scholar
- 18.Auriant I, Vinatier I, Thaler F, Tourneur M, Loirat P (1998) Simplified Acute Physiology Score II for measuring severity of illness in intermediate care units. Crit Care Med 26:1368–1371Google Scholar
- 19.Rasbash J, Browne W, Goldstein H, Yang M, Plewis I, Healy M, Woodhouse G, Draper D, Langford I, Lewis T (2002) A users’ guide to MLwiN. Institute of Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 20.Cox DR, Oaks D (1984) The analysis of survival data. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 23.Mayo E (1933) The human problems of an industrial civilization. MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 24.Leary T, Ridley S (2003) Impact of an outreach team on readmission to a critical care unit. Anaesthesiology 58:328–332Google Scholar