Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using risk adjustment systems in the ICU: avoid scoring an “own goal”

  • Editorial
  • Published:
Intensive Care Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pronovost PJ, Angus DC, Dorman T, Robinson KA, Dremsizov TT, Young TL (2002) Physician staffing patterns and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review. JAMA 288:2151–2162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tarnow-Mordi WO, Hau C, Warden A, Shearer AJ (2000) Hospital mortality in relation to staff workload: a 4-year study in an adult intensive-care unit. Lancet 356:185–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Iapichino G, Gattinoni L, Radrizzani D, Simini B, Bertolini G, Ferla L, Mistraletti G, Porta F, Miranda DR (2004) Volume of activity and occupancy rate in intensive care units. Association with mortality. Intensive Care Med 30:290–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tibby SM, Correa-West J, Durward A, Ferguson L, Murdoch IA (2004) Adverse events in a paediatric intensive care unit: relationship to workload, skill mix and staff supervision. Intensive Care Med 30:1160–1166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tucker J, UK Neonatal Staffing Study Group (2002) Patient volume, staffing, and workload in relation to risk-adjusted outcomes in a random stratified sample of UK neonatal intensive care units: a prospective evaluation. Lancet 359:99–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Glance LG, Osler TM, Dick A (2002) Rating the quality of intensive care units: is it a function of the intensive care unit scoring system? Crit Care Med 30:1976–1982

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Afessa B, Keegan MT, Gajic O, Hubmayr RD, Peters SG (2005) The influence of missing components of the Acute Physiology Score of APACHE III on the measurement of ICU performance. Intensive Care Med 31 (DOI: 10.1007/s00134-005-2751-9)

  8. Metnitz PG, Vesely H, Valentin A, Popow C, Hiesmayr M, Lenz K, Krenn CG, Steltzer H (1999) Evaluation of an interdisciplinary data set for national intensive care unit assessment. Crit Care Med 27:1486–1491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Engel JM, Junger A, Bottger S, Benson M, Michel A, Rohrig R, Jost A, Hempelmann G (2003) Outcome prediction in a surgical ICU using automatically calculated SAPS II scores. Anaesth Intensive Care 31:548–554

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Perez A, Dennis RJ, Gil JF, Rondon MA, Lopez A (2002) Use of the mean, hot deck and multiple imputation techniques to predict outcome in intensive care unit patients in Colombia. Stat Med 21:3885–3896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Polderman KH, Girbes ARJ, Thijs LG, Strack van Schijndel RJM (2001) Accuracy and reliability of Apache II scoring in two Intensive Care units. Problems and pitfalls in the use of APACHE II and suggestions for improvement. Anaesthesia 56:47–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Polderman KH, Girbes ARJ, Thijs LG (1999) Inter-observer variation in assessing severity of illness using the APACHE-II scoring system (research letter). Lancet 353:380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen LM, Martin CM, Morrison TL, Sibbald WJ (1999) Interobserver variability in data collection of the APACHE II score in teaching and community hospitals. Crit Care Med 27:1999–2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Polderman KH, Christiaans, HMT, Wester JP, Spijkstra JJ, Girbes ARJ (2001) Intra-observer variability in APACHE II scoring. Intensive Care Med 27:1550–1552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Polderman KH, Jorna EMF, Girbes ARJ (2001) Inter-observer variability in APACHE II scoring: Effect of strict guidelines and training. Intensive Care Med 27:1365–1369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Keulen JG, Gemke RJB, Polderman KH (2005) Effect of strict guidelines and training on inter-observer variability in PIM and PRISM severity scores. Intensive Care Med 31:1432–1238

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenberg AL, Hofer TP, Strachan C, Watts CM, Hayward RA (2003) Accepting Critically Ill Transfer Patients: Adverse Effect on a Referral Center’s Outcome and Benchmark Measures. Ann Intern Med 138:882–890

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Zanten AR, Polderman KH (2004) Organizational changes in a single intensive care unit affect benchmarking. Ann Intern Med 140:674–675

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Intensive Care, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Kees H. Polderman & Philipp G. H. Metnitz

Authors
  1. Kees H. Polderman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philipp G. H. Metnitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kees H. Polderman.

Additional information

This editorial refers to the article available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-005-2751-9

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Polderman, K.H., Metnitz, P.G.H. Using risk adjustment systems in the ICU: avoid scoring an “own goal”. Intensive Care Med 31, 1471–1473 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-005-2750-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-005-2750-x

Search

Navigation