4.6 Article

The Boarding Patient: Effects of ICU and Hospital Occupancy Surges on Patient Flow

期刊

PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
卷 27, 期 12, 页码 2122-2143

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/poms.12808

关键词

intensive care unit; hospital operations; health care management; empirical analysis

资金

  1. NIH National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [1K12HL109005, 1K23HL130648]
  2. American Thoracic Society Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients admitted to a hospital's intensive care unit (ICU) often endure prolonged boarding within the ICU following receipt of care, unnecessarily occupying a critical care bed, and thereby delaying admission for other incoming patients due to bed shortage. Using patient-level data over two years at two major academic medical centers, we estimate the impact of ICU and ward occupancy levels on ICU length of stay (LOS), and test whether simultaneous surge occupancy in both areas impacts overall ICU length of stay. In contrast to prior studies that only measure total LOS, we split LOS into two individual periods based on physician requests for bed transfers. We find that service time (when critically ill patients are stabilized and treated) is unaffected by occupancy levels. However, the less essential boarding time (when patients wait to exit the ICU) is accelerated during periods of high ICU occupancy and, conversely, prolonged when hospital ward occupancy levels are high. When the ICU and wards simultaneously encounter bed occupancies in the top quartile of historical levels-which occurs 5% of the time-ICU boarding increases by 22% compared to when both areas experience their lowest utilization, suggesting that ward bed availability dominates efforts to accelerate ICU discharges to free up ICU beds. We find no adverse effects of high occupancy levels on ICU bouncebacks, in-hospital deaths, or 30-day hospital readmissions, which supports our finding that the largely discretionary boarding period fluctuates with changing bed occupancy levels.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据