Abstract
The technical equipment of today's intensive care unit (ICU) workstation has been characterized by a gradual, incremental accumulation of individual devices, whose presence is dictated by patient needs. These devices usually present differently designed controls, operate under different alarm philosophies, and cannot communicate with each other. By contrast, ICU workstations could be equipped permanently and in a standardized manner with electronically linked modules if the attending physicians could reliably predict, at the time of admission, the patient's equipment needs. Over a period of 3 1/2 months, the doctors working in our 20-bed surgical ICU made 1,000 predictions concerning outcome, equipment need, duration of artificial ventilation, and duration of hospitalization for 300 recently admitted patients. The interviews were made within the first 24 hours after admission. The doctors being interviewed were usually (i.e., in over 90% of cases) unfamiliar with the patient. Information concerning the patient's general state of health, special pre-ICU events, and complications was offered to the interviewed clinician because this information represents standard admission data. It was found that the equipment need (represented by two different setups, “high tech” and “low tech”) could be predicted most reliably (96.4% correct predictions) compared with a prediction on outcome of ICU treatment (94.5%), on duration of artificial ventilation (75.4%), and on duration of stay (43.4%). There was no significant (p>0.05) difference in the reliability of predictions between residents and consultants. Factors influencing the postoperative equipment need varied with surgical specialty. The general state of health, as indicated by the ASA classification (p<0.001), and the specific intervention (all multiple-valve replacements needed the high-level equipment standard) appeared to be most important in cardiac surgery, while a state of septicemia was important in general surgery (p<0.001). Our findings suggest that ICU workstations may be standardized into at least two types.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Friesdorf W, Hecker E, Ahnefeld WF. Proposal of an integrated workplace in an intensive care unit (ICU). Abstracts of the 9th World Congress of Anaesthesiologists, Washington, DC, 1988:A0384.
Friesdorf WJ, Schreiber MN, Hähnel JH, Grünert A. Integration and standardization of the ICU work place. Abstracts of the 5th World Congress on Intensive and Critical Care Medicine, Kyoto, Japan, 1989:207
Chalfin DB, Carlon GC, Munoz E. Hospital cost of intensive care survivors and non-survivors under diagnostic related groups (DRGs). Abstracts of the 5th World Congress on Intensive and Critical Care Medicine, Kyoto, Japan, 1989:121
Chang RWS. The use of outcome predictors in the individual ICU patient. Abstracts of the 5th World Congress on Intensive and Critical Care Medicine, Kyoto, Japan, 1989:41
Knaus WA, Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Lawrence DE. APACHE—acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system. Crit Care Med 1981;9:591–597
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13:818–829
Lehmkuhl P, Lips U, Pichlmayr I. Der Hannover Intensiv Score (HIS) als neues Klassifikationssystem zu Verlaufskontrollen und Prognosestellung bei Intersivpatienten. Med Klin 1986;81:235–240
Riffel B, Stöhr M, Graser W, Trost E, Baumgartner H. Frühzeitige Prognose beim schweren Schädel-Hirn-Trauma mittels Glasgow-Koma-Score und evozierter Potentiale. Anaesthesist 1989;38:51–58
Obertacke U, Kalotai J, Coenen T, Joka T, Schmid-Neuerburg KP. Ein linearer ARDS-Schweregradscore. Intensivmed 1988;25:264–267
Seefelder C, Matzek N, Rossi R. Polytrauma-Bewertungsskalen; Teil I: Aufgaben, Anforderungen, Einteilungen. Noffallmedizin 1988;14:227–236
Seefelder C, Matzek N, Rossi R. Polytrauma-Bewertungsskalen; Teil II: Trauma Score und Injury Severity Score. Noffallmedizin 1988;14:317–329.
Hopefl AW, Taaffe CL, Herrmann VM. Failure of APACHE II alone as a predictor of mortality in patients receiving total parenteral nutrition. Crit Care Med 1989;17:414–417
Dragsted L, Jørgensen J, Jensen NH, Bonsing E, Jacobsen E, Knaus WA, Qvist J. Interhospital comparisons of patient outcome from intensive care: importance of leadtime bias. Crit Care Med 1989;17:418–422
Kruse JA, Thill-Baharozian MC, Carlson RW. Comparison of clinical assessment with APACHE II for predicting mortality risk in patients admitted to a medical intensive care unit. JAMA 1988;260:1739–1742
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hähnel, J., Friesdorf, W., Schwilk, B. et al. Can a clinician predict the technical equipment a patient will need during intensive care unit treatment? An approach to standardize and redesign the intensive care unit workstation. J Clin Monitor Comput 8, 1–6 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01618079
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01618079