4.7 Article

Assessment of Costs of Avoidable Delays in Intensive Care Unit Discharge

Journal

JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Volume 3, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13913

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions [201300467]
  2. Alberta Health Services [201300467]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This population-based cohort study describes the epidemiology and health care costs associated with potentially avoidable delays in intensive care unit discharge among adult patients in a large integrated health care system. Question What is the association between avoidable intensive care unit (ICU) discharge delay and health care costs and patient outcomes? Findings In this cohort study of 28.904 adult patients treated in the ICU, delayed discharge occurred in 19.964 (69.1%). This avoidable time in the intensive care unit accounted for 12.8% of total ICU bed-days and 6.4% of total ICU costs. Meaning Avoidable discharge delays occurred in most patients in this study, incurring substantial health care costs; strategies at mitigation of potentially avoidable time in the ICU could realize improved efficiency and costs savings for the health care system. Importance Delays in transfer for discharge-ready patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) are increasingly described and contribute to strained capacity. Objective To describe the epidemiological features and health care costs attributable to potentially avoidable delays in ICU discharge in a large integrated health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants This population-based cohort study was performed in 17 adult ICUs in Alberta, Canada, from June 19, 2012, to December 31, 2016. Participants were patients 15 years or older admitted to a study ICU during the study period. Data were analyzed from October 19, 2018, to May 20, 2020. Exposures Avoidable time in the ICU, defined as the portion of total ICU patient-days accounted for by avoidable delay in ICU discharge (eg, waiting for a ward bed). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was health care costs attributable to avoidable time in the ICU. Secondary outcomes were factors associated with avoidable time, in-hospital mortality, and measures of use of health care resources, including the number of hours in the ICU and the number of days of hospitalization. Multilevel mixed multivariable regression was used to assess associations between avoidable time and outcomes. Results In total, 28.904 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [16.8] years; 18 030 male [62.4%]) were included. Of these, 19.964 patients (69.1%) had avoidable time during their ICU admission. The median avoidable time per patient was 7.2 (interquartile range, 2.4-27.7) hours. In multivariable analysis, male sex (odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98), comorbid hemiplegia or paraplegia (OR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.23-1.75), liver disease (OR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.37), admission Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03), surgical status (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98), medium community hospital type (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.32), and admission year (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19) were associated with avoidable time. The cumulative avoidable time was 19.373.9 days, with estimated attributable costs of CAD$ 34323.522. Avoidable time accounted for 12.8% of total ICU bed-days and 6.4% of total ICU costs. Patients with avoidable time before ICU discharge showed higher unadjusted in-hospital mortality (1115 [5.6%] vs 392 [4.4%]; P < .001); however, in multivariable analysis, avoidable time was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, potentially avoidable discharge delay occurred for most patients admitted to ICUs across a large integrated health system and translated into substantial associated health care costs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available