Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1134_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
19 Мб
Скачать
462
H.H. Hon et al.
medical research settings is some form of regression model­ing with accompanying graphical output—a process that may be relatively simple or highly complex depending on the study objectives and types of data (e.g., normally distributed versus skewed, correlated errors requiring time-series analy­sis with moving averages, linear versus nonlinear relation­ships, no adjustment versus adjustment for independent variable, confounding, and/or interactional effects) [
Conclusion
67 ].
This chapter described some of the key terms and con-
cepts pertaining to research and statistical methodology,
including important factors to consider in designing a
study and/or analyzing the data. Interested readers should
consult sources listed in the reference section for addi-
tional information. In addition, there are numerous online
resources for readers who wish to pursue the topic
further.

References

1. Slee VN. Statistics infl uence medical practice. Mod Hosp.
1954;83(1):55–8.
2. Lancaster HO. Statistics and medical practice. Med J Aust.
1982;1(9):366.
3. Stawicki SP, et al. Fundamentals of patient safety in medicine &
surgery. 1st ed. New Delhi: Wolters Kluwer (India) Pvt. Ltd; 2015.
4. McCluskey A, Lalkhen AG. Statistics IV: interpreting the results of sta-
tistical tests. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2007;7(6):208–12.
5. Lieberman MD, Cunningham WA. Type I and Type II error con-
cerns in fMRI research: re-balancing the scale. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2009;4(4):423–8.
6. Greenfi eld ML, Kuhn JE, Wojtys EM. A statistics primer. P values:
probability and clinical signifi cance. Am J Sports Med. 1996; 24(6):863–5.
7. Rosen BL, DeMaria AL. Statistical signifi cance vs. practical sig-
nifi cance: an exploration through health education. Am J Health Edu. 2012;43(4):235–41.
8. Case LD, Ambrosius WT. Power and sample size. Methods Mol
Biol. 2007;404:377–408.
9. Freedman KB, Back S, Bernstein J. Sample size and statistical
power of randomised, controlled trials in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83(3):397–402.
10. Jaykaran PY, Kantharia ND. Reporting of sample size and power in
negative clinical trials published in Indian medical journals. J Pharm Negat Results. 2011;2(2):87–90.
11. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd
ed. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988. p. 567.
12. Boxer PJ. Notes on Checkland’s soft systems methodology. 1994
[May 3, 2015]; Available from:
web/20091229162231/http://www.brl.com/pdfs/checklnd.pdf
13. GraphPad. What is the difference between Type I, Type II, and Type
III errors? 2015 [May 3, 2015]; Available from:
com/support/faqid/1080/
14. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed.
Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 758. x.
15. Hill HA, Kleinbaum DG. Bias in observational studies.
Encyclopedia Biostatistics. 2005. 1.
.
http://web.archive.org/
.
http://graphpad.
16. Sica GT. Bias in research studies. Radiology. 2006;238(3):780–9.
17. Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619–25.
18. Duffy SW, et al. Correcting for lead time and length bias in estimat­ing the effect of screen detection on cancer survival. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(1):98–104.
19. Hennessy S, et al. Factors infl uencing the optimal control-to-case ratio in matched case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(2):195–7.
20. ResearchGate. What is the rationale for 1:2 ratio in case-control studies? 2015 [May 3, 2015]; Available from:
post/What_is_the_Rationale_for_12_ratio_in_Case_Control_studies
21. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Descriptive studies: what they can and can­not do. Lancet. 2002;359(9301):145–9.
22. Zollinger RM, Ellison EH. Primary peptic ulcerations of the jeju­num associated with islet cell tumors of the pancreas. Ann Surg. 1955;142(4):709–23; discussion, 724–8.
23. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Lancet. 2002;359(9300):57–61.
24. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Cohort studies: marching towards out­comes. Lancet. 2002;359(9303):341–5.
25. Barton S. Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The best RCT still trumps the best observational study. BMJ. 2000;321(7256):255–6.
26. Ioannidis JP. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14(5):951–7.
27. McNutt LA, et al. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(10): 940–3.
28. Wilber ST, Fu R. Risk ratios and odds ratios for common events in cross-sectional and cohort studies. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(6): 649–51.
29. Stawicki SP. Guide to free statistical software: general applications. OPUS 12 Sci. 2010;4(1):12–3.
30. Stawicki SP. Guide to statistical software: meta-analysis applica­tions. OPUS 12 Sci. 2011;5(1):4–5.
31. Larson MG. Descriptive statistics and graphical displays. Circulation. 2006;114(1):76–81.
32. Onchiri S. Conceptual model on application of chi-square test in education and social sciences. Educ Res Rev. 2013;8(15):1231–41.
33. Balding DJ. A tutorial on statistical methods for population associa­tion studies. Nat Rev Genet. 2006;7(10):781–91.
34. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression, Wiley series in probability and statistics texts and references section. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000. p. 373. xii.
35. Stratford PW. The added value of confi dence intervals. Phys Ther. 2010;90(3):333–5.
36. McCluskey A, Lalkhen AG. Statistics II: central tendency and spread of data. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2007;7(4):127–30.
37. Salmond S. Taking the mystery out of research: box and whisker plots: displaying mean, interquartile range, and range. Orthop Nurs. 2007;26(1):33.
38. Wan X, et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):135.
39. Lyon A. Why are normal distributions normal? Br J Philos Sci. 2014;65(3):621–49.
40. Barde MP, Barde PJ. What to use to express the variability of data: standard deviation or standard error of mean? Perspect Clin Res. 2012;3(3):113–6.
41. Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: standard deviations and standard errors. Adv Physiol Educ. 2008;32(3):203–8.
42. Sculco AD. Spine stats. The Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney tests. Spine J. 2001;1(2):153.
43. Hollander M, Wolfe DA. Nonparametric statistical methods, Wiley series in probability and statistics texts and references section. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1999. p. 787. xiv.
https://www.researchgate.net/
.
39 Biostatistics for the Intensivist: A Clinically Oriented Guide to Research Analysis and Interpretation
463
44. Lazic SE. Why we should use simpler models if the data allow this: relevance for ANOVA designs in experimental biology. BMC Physiol. 2008;8(1):16.
45. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Experimental designs using ANOVA. Belmont: Thomson/Brooks/Cole; 2007. p. 724. xxi.
46. Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J. Statistics review 7: correlation and regression. Crit Care. 2003;7(6):451–9.
47. Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: regression. Adv Physiol Educ. 2011;35(4):347–52.
48. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon; 2007. p. 980. xxviii.
49. Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: confi dence intervals. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009;33(2):87–90.
50. Wikipedia. 68–95–99.7 rule. 2015 [May 3, 2015]; Available from:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule
51. Parikh R, et al. Understanding and using sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008;56(1): 45–50.
52. Bruno P. The importance of diagnostic test parameters in the inter­pretation of clinical test fi ndings: the prone hip extension test as an example. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2011;55(2):69–75.
53. Fawcett T. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recog Lett. 2006;27(8):861–74.
54. Pett MA. Nonparametric statistics for health care research: statis­tics for small samples and unusual distributions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1997. p. 307.
55. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37(5):360–3.
56. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.
http://
.
57. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8.
58. Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J. Statistics review 12: survival analysis. Crit Care. 2004;8(5):389–94.
59. UCLA. Supplemental notes to applied survival analysis: applied survival analysis. 2015 [May 3, 2015]; Available from:
ats.ucla.edu/stat/examples/asa/test_proportionality.htm
60. Lee ET. Statistical methods for survival data analysis, Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics applied probability and statistics. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1992. p. 482. xii.
61. Conley EC, et al. Simultaneous trend analysis for evaluating out­comes in patient-centred health monitoring services. Health Care Manag Sci. 2008;11(2):152–66.
62. Stawicki SP. Financial analysis techniques in clinical practice: from ‘micro’ to ‘macro’. OPUS 12 Sci. 2008;2(3):3–9.
63. Stawicki SP, et al. The glucogram: a new quantitative tool for gly­cemic analysis in the surgical intensive care unit. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2011;1(1):5–12.
64. Stawicki SP. Application of fi nancial analysis techniques to clinical laboratory data: a novel method of trend interpretation in the inten­sive care unit. OPUS 12 Sci. 2007;1(2):1–4.
65. Stawicki SP. Application of fi nancial analysis techniques to vital sign data: a novel method of trend interpretation in the intensive care unit. OPUS 12 Sci. 2007;1(1):14–6.
66. Pappada SM, et al. Evaluation of a model for glycemic prediction in critically ill surgical patients. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69475.
67. Rosenberg, D. U. S. Department of health & human services, divi­sion of science, education and analysis: trend analysis and interpre­tation. 1997; Available from:
pdfs/trendanaylsis.pdf
.
http://mchb.hrsa.gov/publications/
http://www.
.

Administration

Samuel A. Tisherman
4 0

Introduction

As medicine has advanced over the past 50 years, the need for high-quality, cost-effective critical care services has expanded exponentially. In the USA, one recent estimate was that fi ve million patients are admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) every year, leading to 23 million ICU bed days [
1 ]. The cost of managing these patients typically accounts
for a large percentage of hospital costs.
The importance of high-quality care in ICUs cannot be underestimated. Major complications often occur in the ICU or lead to ICU admission. On the other hand, a strong critical care service that prioritizes quality care can dem­onstrate a high level of patient safety and allow the hospi­tal to meet quality standards set by third-party payers and attract patients, who have now become more informed consumers of healthcare. Also, providing excellent critical care service can help attract and retain leading surgeons.
Though critical care may be provided to patients any­where, including outside the hospital, in the emergency department, or in the operating room, this chapter focuses on the provision of care within an adult, surgical ICU, defined as a geographic space within the hospital with the equipment and personnel to support or prevent failing organ function in patients at high risk of death. The discussion includes the unit structure, leadership, personnel, development of policies and guidelines, per­formance and quality improvement, patient safety, and costs. The basic principles should also apply to medical and pediatric ICUs.
S. A. Tisherman , MD, FACS, FCCM Surgical Intensive Care Unit , RA Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland Medical Center , Baltimore , MD 21201 , USA
stisherman@umm.edu
e-mail:

Structure

The structure of ICUs varies depending upon the type of unit (e.g., mixed medical/surgical, general surgical, or subspe­cialty surgical) and local culture and politics. ICUs typically function as open or closed, depending upon which physi­cians are able to admit and discharge patients, as well as write orders. In a purely open model, any physician has the authority to admit and manage patients. In this model, there tend to be multiple consultants, each managing a single organ system. In contrast, in closed units, the intensivist team completely manages the patients, streamlining care and allowing for a more holistic approach to the patient. In semi­open units, the surgical team and the critical care team comanage the patient, each having the authority to write orders. The hospital may require intensivist consultation for each patient admitted to this type of ICU. Surgical ICUs tend to have a more open or semi-open structure, allowing the surgical team to maintain signifi cant control of their patients’ care. Both closed and semi-open models are referred to as “high-intensity” staffi ng. This model of care delivery is asso­ciated with improved mortality compared to a “low- intensity” staffi ng model [ critical for the surgical team to remain closely involved in the patient’s care. The surgeon best knows the details of the operative intervention and the potential complications.
Nighttime, in-hospital intensivist coverage has been stud­ied both retrospectively and prospectively. Wallace, et al. found that nighttime coverage did not improve outcome with high-intensity daytime coverage [ 3 ]. In contrast, however, there were improved outcomes with low-intensity daytime coverage. A subsequent, randomized, clinical trial of 24/7 staffi ng vs. daytime-only coverage with consultation at night by telephone did not demonstrate any differences in length of stay or mortality [ 4 ]. The recent Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guideline on the delivery of critical care recommended that high-intensity staffi ng “is an integral part of effective care delivery in the ICU and can lead to improved outcomes” [
2 ]. Even in a functionally closed unit, it is
5 ].
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 N.D. Martin, L.J. Kaplan (eds.), Principles of Adult Surgical Critical Care, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33341-0_40
465
466
S.A. Tisherman
ICUs differ in their primary patient populations. Small hospitals may have only one ICU that manages both medical and surgical patients. At larger hospitals, in general, medical ICUs accept only critically ill medical patients, and coronary care units accept patients with acute coronary syndromes or heart failure, though there may be some other medical sub­specialty units. These hospitals may have one dedicated sur­gical ICU. With the increasing sub-specialization of surgical services, however, large tertiary care hospitals or academic medical centers may have a variety of subspecialty surgical ICUs, including cardiothoracic, trauma, neurotrauma, and transplant. Neurocritical care has become a bona fi de sub­specialty of critical care. Depending upon the numbers of patients and local politics, tertiary care hospitals may have a dedicated neurosurgical, neurotrauma, neurologic, or neuro­science ICU.
Coverage of patients in subspecialty ICUs can also vary among hospitals. In some systems, the management is service based, e.g., the surgical ICU team follows all critically ill sur­gical patients, wherever they physically reside. The alterna­tive strategy is that the critical care team manages all patients that are physically in their ICU. The latter approach can lead to managing “boarders,” e.g., a medical patient in a surgical ICU. There is no clear evidence that boarders do any worse than if they were housed in their designated ICUs.
If possible, surgical patients who require intensive care should be taken directly from the operating room to the ICU. This may not be possible if a bed is not immediately available. In this situation, surgical patients may be taken to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) postoperatively. Boarding patients in the PACU, in contrast to boarding them in another ICU, thus delaying ICU admission, may adversely affect mortality [
6 ].
Critical events frequently occur outside of the ICU. Intensivists need to be involved in the development of a rapid response system to quickly provide critical care wher­ever it is needed in the hospital and to transport the patient to the appropriate ICU [
7 ]. In some systems, the intensivist
leads all responses. Other systems have a two-tiered system in which ICU nurses or advanced practice providers (APPs) initially assess the patient and then engage the intensivist when necessary.
The role of telemedicine in the ICU continues to evolve [
8 ].
Advanced telemedicine systems combine the availability of an intensivist and APPs with an electronic health record (EHR) that provides real-time advice regarding best practices and longitudinal data collection for performance improvement. Such programs may be able to improve mortality and length of stay, particularly with low-intensity intensivist coverage. But even in academic medical centers with high-intensity intensiv­ist staffi ng and in-house resident or fellow coverage, a tele­medicine system may provide patient care benefi ts without diminishing the educational value of the ICU for the trainees.

Personnel

What ultimately separates an ICU from a standard medical/ surgical ward in the hospital is the presence of a suffi cient number of appropriately trained, highly specialized person­nel working together to manage the most critically ill patients. These personnel include physicians, nurses, patient care technicians, respiratory therapists, and pharmacists. Physical and occupational therapists, speech therapists, social workers, and other administrative staff are critical to the ICU mission.
In the high-intensity staffi ng model, the intensivist is directly involved in the management of every patient in the ICU either as the primary physician (closed model) or a mandatory consultation (semi-open model). The ICU physi­cian staffi ng standard of The Leapfrog Group [ 9 ] recom- mends that physicians managing patients in the ICU should be free from other responsibilities so that they can attend to patients’ needs at any time. The optimal number of patients covered by a single intensivist is unclear, but 15 or more may be undesirable [ 10 ]. In addition to providing direct patient care, the intensivists should be responsible for developing diagnostic and therapeutic protocols, as well as admission and discharge criteria.
At large medical centers, trainees from a variety of spe­cialties, including surgery, anesthesiology, internal medi­cine, emergency medicine, and neurology, provide direct patient care in the ICU. The staff intensivists are responsible for supervising and teaching the trainees. As the trainees progress through their training, they should have the oppor­tunity to take on increasing responsibility.
As the need for critical care services have increased, con­cerns about a shortage of intensivists have been raised. Part of the solution is encouraging trainees to choose a career in critical care. Relatively new avenues to certifi cation for emergency medicine physicians and neurologists have helped. In addition, APPs have become key providers at the bedside in ICUs. The number of intensivists, physician train­ees, and APPs needed to run an ICU varies with the patient population and acuity.
Bedside nurses are the ones who spend the most time directly interacting with patients and implementing the plan of care. They need to have specialized critical care training to assure specifi c competencies needed for the specifi c patient populations they care for. Nurse trainees are often involved also. The number of nurses needed to provide appropriate care in an ICU is dependent upon the number of beds in the ICU and patient acuity. In the USA, the patient/nurse ratio is typically 2:1. However, some patients require very frequent, if not constant, attention, necessitating 1:1 staffi ng.
In the USA, certifi ed respiratory therapy technicians man­age ventilators. This paradigm is much less common outside the USA, where the physicians and nurses manage the
40 Administration
467
ventilators. In either system, it is critical that both physician and nursing personnel in the ICU are trained to assist the patients’ ventilation in case of an emergency, either by adjusting the ventilator or using a self-infl ating bag.
Bioengineering staff is needed to maintain the advanced monitors and devices that are used in the ICU. Administrative staff to stock supplies, manage paperwork, and answer phones can be invaluable for allowing the nursing staff to focus on direct patient care needs.

Guidelines

Managing critically ill patients can be very complex. There are multiple physicians, nurses, and allied healthcare team members involved. To optimize patient care, everyone must be “on the same page.” ICU leadership is responsible for the development of policies (which refl ect institutional princi­ples or values) and protocols (which are specifi c manage­ment tools). These should be developed based upon the best evidence available.
Many national organizations have developed evidence­based guidelines for various aspects of the management of critically ill patients (Table 40.1 ). Some are developed for very specifi c diseases or procedures, e.g., guidelines for management of specifi c injuries in trauma patients. Others are more generic for critical illness, e.g., sepsis or mechani­cal ventilation.
Implementation of guidelines requires buy-in from all members of the ICU team. Representatives from all key pro­fessions and disciplines should be involved from the begin­ning. Protocols developed just by physicians can readily fail because nursing or respiratory therapy issues were not taken into account, making implementation impossible.
Once policies and protocols are developed, the practitio­ners at the bedside need to be aware of them. Educational programs should be developed so that they understand the details of the protocol. The choice of format for education, such as live in-services or web-based materials, depends upon the type of material, institutional support, and number of personnel to be trained. If possible, protocols, such as ven­tilator weaning protocols, should be embedded into electronic
order sets. Policies, such as indications for transfusion, can be incorporated as prompts within the EHR. The EHR should provide data for the ICU leadership regarding policy and protocol compliance.

Quality Care

The goal of providing care to critically ill patients is to pre­vent or support major organ system dysfunction in order to minimize morbidity and mortality. To accomplish this, the critical care team needs data. Ideally, initiatives to improve the quality of patient care should demonstrate improvement in patient-centered outcomes, such as mortality, functional recovery, or major morbidity. Over the years, attempts to improve these types of outcomes have been fraught with non-statistically signifi cant differences either between groups or before and after an intervention is implemented. Often it is just not practical or even possible to have enough patients to demonstrate a difference. Similarly, when one center seems to demonstrate a difference, replicating this effect at other centers has been diffi cult.
Donabedian described three aspects to quality care: struc­ture, process, and outcome [ 11 ]. Structure refers to the organi- zation of critical care services within the ICU. Process refers to how care is provided in the ICU. Outcomes refer to patient outcomes. Local infrastructure and politics often make chang­ing the structure of care diffi cult. Demonstrating improve­ments in outcome, as noted above, is also diffi cult. Therefore, most projects focus on changing the process of care.
Process improvement projects have traditionally followed the plan, do, study, act (PDSA) paradigm. Curtis et al. have developed a more detailed guide to quality improvement projects [ 12 ]. Some key elements emphasized in this guide include (1) prioritizing projects based upon importance for patient care, level of motivation, and feasibility; (2) preparing for the project, including developing a plan and building sup­port; (3) creating systems for collecting data and reporting it; and (4) introducing strategies for changing clinician behav­ior. Once initiated, it is important to review the data, poten­tially modify the strategy, and, if successful, develop a process for sustainability of the intervention.
Table 40.1 Resources for guidelines
Organization Website Society of Critical Care Medicine Chest
American Thoracic Society
Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Western Trauma Association National Guideline Clearinghouse
http://www.learnicu.org/pages/guidelines.aspx https://www.chestnet.org/Guidelines-and-Resources/Guidelines-and-Consensus-statements/
CHEST-guidelines http://www.thoracic.org/professionals/clinical-resources/critical-care/
statements-and-guidelines/ http://www.east.org/education/practice-management-guidelines http://westerntrauma.org/algorithms/algorithms.html http://www.guideline.gov/
468
S.A. Tisherman
Adherence to a protocol or a national guideline is a com­mon starting place for quality improvement that is both doable and likely to improve the process of care and possibly the outcomes of care.
Bedside checklists can readily improve the processes of care [ 13 ]. Such a checklist could include spontaneous awak- ening trial, spontaneous breathing trial, need for urinary catheter, need for central venous catheters, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, stress ulcer prophylaxis, etc.
Though demonstrating that an intervention clearly improves outcomes is challenging and frustrating, we should not stop trying. Over time, even without obvious break­through treatments, outcomes for critically ill patients have been improving; the critical care system is doing something right. Mortality and complication rates should be tracked. Other straightforward outcomes to be followed include read­mission to the ICU and unexpected extubations, particularly those that result in re-intubation. A “softer” outcome that is worthy of study is patient and/or family satisfaction with their experience in the ICU.
Obtaining data on ICU processes and outcomes can be challenging. If possible, the EHR should be able to generate much of the data. Asking staff (either nurses or physicians) to collect this data can be more problematic. All staff work­ing in the ICU environment tend to be well motivated and hardworking. But asking them to add the additional burden of data collection may lead to pushback. On the other hand, with the right leadership and establishment of a culture of safety, it is possible to have clinicians’ help with some of this data collection, as long as the workfl ow is as effi cient as possible.
Outcomes for critically ill patients are dependent upon the severity of the patients’ illness, as well as the processes of care within the ICU. Outcome data needs to be risk adjusted so that appropriate comparisons can be made between local ICUs and regional or national norms.
Beyond working with ICU staff, quality improvement and patient safety initiatives should be a high priority for hospital administration. This is particularly true in the era of hospital reimbursement based upon quality. For example, if the hos­pital stands to lose money if the frequency of healthcare­associated conditions reaches a certain threshold, then the hospital needs to provide the resources to gather data on the processes instituted to minimize these conditions.
Changing behaviors in the complex environment of the ICU can be challenging. Input and buy-in from all parties involved are critical. Some recommendations from the SCCM guideline on critical care delivery include (1) fl ow sheets posted in the ICU illustrating how new processes have been incorporated into daily workfl ow, (2) formal protocols for educating fl oat staff, (3) inclusion of new processes into daily checklists completed during multidisciplinary rounds, (4) the use of auditors, and (5) staff evaluations that report
how frequently staff comply with new processes [ 5 ]. Automatic triggers, such as via the EHR, and real-time feed­back can help. Gurses et al. have developed a useful tool for identifying and eliminating barriers to compliance [ 14 ]. The tool involves assembling a multidisciplinary team, identify­ing barriers by observing the process and talking with staff, summarizing barriers, prioritizing barriers based upon sever­ity and likelihood of causing noncompliance, and developing an action plan for each identifi ed barrier.

Costs

The provision of critical care services absorbs a huge amount of hospital budgets. This can lead to tension between the hospital and ICU leadership. The hospital will try to contain costs. The ICU team wants to provide high-quality care, which takes resources. Personnel constitute the largest por­tion of the costs for providing critical care services. It is criti­cal to have suffi cient nursing staff and appropriate support staff to provide quality care while maintaining a high level of staff satisfaction and pride. When the staff feels overworked or undervalued, they will look elsewhere for employment, adding additional burdens on those left behind, who in turn become disgruntled. The ICU leadership needs to keep team morale as a high priority when negotiating staffi ng with hos­pital administration.
Other large components of ICU costs include laboratory tests, imaging studies, and medications, which the intensivist can, in part, control. It seems simple to suggest that the inten­sivist should only order laboratory or imaging tests that are clearly indicated, rather than ordering a series of tests on a daily basis. One part of the solution is to develop order sets that include only the minimum number of labs and imaging studies needed to safely manage a particular patient popula­tion. Another part of the strategy is to have the ordering of lab tests and imaging studies become a routine topic of dis­cussion on rounds. Though intensivists can individually help control the use of expensive medications, the hospital phar­macy service (through the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee) has the ability to more directly limit certain medication use. Ideally, intensivists and pharmacists should work together to defi ne appropriate indications for medica­tion use based upon the best available literature. This can result in a range of approaches, from pop-ups in the EHR to direct control of the use of a certain medications by gatekeepers.
From the hospital perspective, there is a strong incentive to minimize the number of ICU days per patient since reim­bursement from third-party payers is usually based upon the patient’s Diagnosis Related Group, not per diem charges. From the perspective of optimizing care, transferring patients who need intensive care into the ICU should occur as rapidly
40 Administration
469
as possible. On the fl ip side, transferring appropriate patients out of the ICU should also be effi cient. Yet, there are often downstream bottlenecks created by an inadequate number of intermediate care or telemetry beds. The ICU leadership needs to be able to present data to the hospital administration regarding how these delayed transfers affect ICU throughput and, ultimately, could lead to delayed transfers from outside hospitals, boarding of patients in the PACU, or even delay/ cancelation of operative procedures.

Communication

Critically ill surgical patients typically have a number of physi­cians involved in their care, including the intensivist, the oper­ating surgeon, and consultants. In addition, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, and others are involved. From the patient and family perspec­tive, it is very helpful for a member of the team to explain everyone’s role when the patient is admitted to the ICU.
Good communication among all these individuals is criti­cal for providing high-quality care. Well-structured, multi­disciplinary rounds go a long way toward setting the stage for communication. It is important for the intensivist to facil­itate discussion on rounds so that all members of the team have input and feel engaged in the patient’s plan of care. Using a checklist or goal sheet can help assure that the plan is clear to everyone and that small details are not missed. During afternoon or evening rounds, the goal sheet should be reviewed. If an item has not been accomplished, there should be documentation of why not.
Transitions of care, such as from the operating room to the ICU or from the ICU to a regular hospital fl oor, are points in time when various aspects of the patient’s care may get lost. Development of handoff sheets and a structured reporting sys­tem can help assure that the continuum of care is maintained.

Role of the Surgeon

Whether or not the ICU is structured as a closed, semi-open, or open unit, the involvement of the operating surgeon is critical. It behooves the intensivist to be sure that the attend­ing surgeon is involved in any major decisions affecting the patient’s management. The surgeon best knows the operative fi ndings, anticipated postoperative course, and potential complications. The surgeon has also developed a close rap­port with the patient and the patient’s family prior to the operation. Communication between the ICU and surgical teams needs to be open and collegial, both when the patient is doing well and when unexpected complications arise. If possible, developing protocols jointly can help keep every­one “on the same page.”
The relationship between the surgeon and the intensivist can sometimes become contentious, particularly for the non­surgeon intensivist, when they have differing opinions regard­ing prognosis and end-of-life decision-making [ 15 ]. The surgeon may focus on defeating death, while the intensivist may focus on survival with good quality of life. Surgeons per­form often complex and high-risk operations with the intent of curing the patient’s underlying disease and achieving survival with a good quality of life. This has been described as the “covenant to cure.” Because they have directly operated upon the patient, they feel a sense of responsibility and ownership that is different than that of the non-surgeons involved in the patient’s care. As a consequence, they may not readily relin­quish all or part of the responsibility for the patient’s care to the intensivist. They also may feel a sense that their patients are somehow different than the typical patient studied in the ICU, such that general ICU or hospital protocols for adminis­tration of blood products or various medications do not apply. Discussion and education separated from the management of an individual patient can help, as can jointly developed proto­cols. Emotions can cloud judgment when discussing the care of a single patient.
Intensivists also want the patient to do well and have a good quality of life after ICU care. But intensivists tend to have a more holistic view of the patient’s status, taking relief of pain and suffering into account.
When clear differences of opinion regarding prognosis exist, there is no easy way to come to consensus. Direct com­munication is always the best place to start. It is unfair to a family to ask them to make a decision regarding care of their loved one when the physicians involved cannot even agree on what to expect. That is not to say that medical uncertainty should not be part of the discussion with the family. It should. But giving them divergent messages only adds confusion. When there are differences of opinion between members of the healthcare team or between the healthcare team and the family, it can be helpful to engage the palliative medicine or supportive care service. These consultants, who are not expert in the medical issues involved and have no direct involvement in the patient’s medical care, can help facilitate constructive conversations within the healthcare team and between the team and the patient’s family. Although the dis­cussion is often around continuing the “full court press” or shifting to comfort measures only, a middle ground of a time-limited trial of ongoing aggressive care is sometimes more palatable to everyone involved.

Leadership

Ideal functioning of the complex environment in the ICU requires excellent leadership, both medical and nursing. Leaders need to serve as role models for their staffs and
470
S.A. Tisherman
trainees. In addition, the leaders need to be excellent com­municators. They need to listen to the concerns of their staff, as well as the concerns of the surgical teams. They also need to be very good at managing confl ict. Keeping everyone focused on doing the right thing for the patient usually goes a long way.
Among intensivists, there may be signifi cant variability in practice. The use of national guidelines can help the group come to consensus [
16 ]. But much of the care delivered in
the ICU is not covered by guidelines or randomized clinical trials. This does not preclude the development of local guide­lines and protocols to provide more uniform care. Development of these guidelines in conjunction with other stakeholders, such as the nursing staff, pharmacy staff, and surgical services, will help.
For an ICU team to function well, it is critical that the medical and nursing leadership support each other. This syn­ergy can enhance the quality of care and relationships with the surgical teams. All staff needs to be held accountable for their roles in providing quality care.
It is important for the medical leadership of ICUs to have a multi-professional forum for discussion of data on the quality of care for patients in the ICUs, quality improvement projects, and share best practices.
Leadership, both medical and nursing, needs to nurture the career development of members of the staff. This may involve modeling appropriate behaviors and communication skills, mentoring clinical skills and academic projects, and supporting career advancement, even when that means hav­ing a valued team member leave the ICU for a higher posi­tion in their profession.
The ideal functioning of an ICU requires a number of people in leadership positions that answer to the medical director and nurse manager. There may be several important committees, including process improvement, education, and equipment/resources. A social (or “retention”) committee can serve an important role in developing team camaraderie. The leaders of these committees should be appropriately mentored for their current and future leadership roles.

Intensivist Compensation

Intensivist staffi ng for an ICU has a signifi cant impact on com­pensation. Staffi ng can become complex because the size of an ICU and the average census of the ICU are not designed around the intensivist workload. The optimal number of patients for an intensivist to manage on a daily basis is diffi cult to defi ne. Within the pulmonary critical care medicine community, one survey suggested concerns about the quality of care if one inten­sivist needed to manage 15 or more patients [ 10 ]. If an ICU has ten beds, can an intensivist generate suffi cient billing to justify appropriate salary support? As the size of the ICU increases
beyond 15, the covering intensivist may become increasingly stressed. At what size of unit is it viable to have two intensivists? How readily do residents and fellows allow intensivists to cover more patients? Advanced practice providers may also allow a single intensivist to cover more patients. In addition, they can bill independently, though they typically are reimbursed at 85 % of that of the physician. If the APPs are part of the same billing unit or practice corporation as the intensivist and they capture billing that would otherwise have been lost, their reimbursement can help with the group’s fi nancial viability.
Like other hospital-based specialists, intensivists have little control over the number of patients they see on a daily basis. Clinical income for intensivists is usually limited by the number of patients in the ICU. Efforts to optimize this billing within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidelines for critical care billing are worthwhile. The use of critical care codes (e.g., 99291 and 99292) is reimbursed at a signifi cantly higher level than the subsequent hospital visit codes (e.g., 99231–99233). Intensivists need to learn the nuances of critical care documentation and coding in order to appropriately maximize billing. In addition, all procedures, such as intubation, bronchoscopy, and central venous catheter placement that are not bundled within the critical care codes, should be captured.
Some critical care groups have taken on responsibility for patients outside the ICU. This may take the form of partici­pation in rapid response systems or a critical care consulta­tion service. These initiatives can add to practice income, though the more important impact may be on the quality of patient care outside the ICU, helping to decrease the need for ICU transfer and for readmission.
Compensation for availability is important for an inten­sivist group to negotiate with the hospital [ 17 ]. Whether this availability is from home or in the hospital at night, it bene­fi ts the hospital in terms of quality patient care. Therefore, the hospital should fi nancially support the group for provid­ing this service.
Incentive plans within private practice or academic groups vary considerably. Some offer “carrots” for compliance with regulatory paperwork, quality improvement initiatives, edu­cation, or research. Such an approach encourages individuals to go “above and beyond” the minimal workload and can increase the quality and quantity of scholarly activities. Others use a “stick” approach, e.g., placing a certain percent­age of salary at risk for failure to comply with various requirements or not participating in various activities.
Effective ICU leaders are able to demonstrate the value of critical care services to the hospital [ 17 ]. Providing quality care can decrease complications, readmissions, and length of stay. In addition, because critical care costs are such a large part of the hospital’s budget, critical care teams have the potential for providing considerable savings to the hospital by limiting the use of expensive therapies to patients who
40 Administration
471
would most benefi t from them and decreasing unnecessary lab and imaging tests. In some circumstances, the savings can be substantial, giving the intensivists an opportunity to ask the administration for a percentage of those savings.

Measuring Success

The success of an ICU team can be measured in a variety of ways. Patients’ clinical outcomes may be the most important, but, as discussed above, improving outcomes via changes in the process of care can be diffi cult to demonstrate. On the other hand, successfully following protocols and other pro­cesses of care is a valuable measure of success. Other param­eters include patient/family satisfaction and respect of the surgical services. Finally, retention of high- quality, dedicated staff is a sign of successful ICU structure and leadership.

References

1. Halpern NA, Pastores SM, Oropello JM, et al. Critical care medi­cine in the United States: addressing the intensivist shortage and image of the specialty. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:2754–61.
2. Wilcox ME, Chong CAKY, Niven DJ, et al. Do intensivist staffi ng patterns infl uence hospital mortality following ICU admission? A systematic review and meta-analyses. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:2253–74.
3. Wallace DJ, Angus DC, Barnato AE, et al. Nighttime intensivist staffi ng and mortality among critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2093–101.
4. Kerlin MP, Small DS, Cooney E, et al. A randomized trial of night­time physician staffi ng in an intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2201–9.
5. Weled BJ, Adzhigirey LA, Hodgman TM, et al. Critical care delivery: the importance of process of care and ICU structure to improved outcomes. An update from the American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force on Models of Critical Care. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(7):1520–5.
6. Bing-Hua YU. Delayed admission to intensive care unit for criti­cally surgical patients is associated with increased mortality. Am J Surg. 2014;208:268–74.
7. Jones DA, DeVita MA, Bellomo R. Rapid-response teams. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:139–46.
8. Lilly CM, Zubrow MT, Kempner KM, et al. Critical care telemedi­cine: evolution and state of the art. Crit Care Med. 2014;42: 2429–36.
http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/FactSheet_IPS.pdf .
9 .
Accessed 11 July 2015.
10. Ward NS, Afessa B, Kleinpell R, et al. Intensivist/patient ratios in closed ICUs: a statement from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Taskforce on ICU Staffi ng. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:638–45.
11. Donabedian A. Continuity and change in the quest for quality. Clin Perform Qual Health Care. 1993;1:9–16.
12. Curtis JR, Cook DJ, Wall RJ, et al. Intensive care unit quality improvement: a “how-to” guide for the interdisciplinary team. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:211–8.
13. Byrnes MC, Schuerer DJ, Schallom ME, et al. Implementation of a mandatory checklist of protocols and objectives improves compli­ance with a wide range of evidence-based intensive care unit prac­tices. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2775–81.
14. Gurses AP, Murphy DJ, Martinez EA, et al. A practical tool to iden­tify and eliminate barriers to compliance with evidence-based guidelines. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2009;35:526–32. 485.
15. Penkoske PA, Buchman TG. The relationship between the surgeon and the intensivist in the surgical intensive care unit. Surg Clin N Am. 2006;86:1351–7.
16. St Andre A. The formation, elements of success, and challenges in managing a critical care program (Part I). Crit Care Med. 2015;43(4):874–9.
17. St Andre A. The formation, elements of success, and challenges in managing a critical care program (Part II). Crit Care Med. 2015; 43(5):1096–101.

Practical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

Anthony T. Gerlach and Lina Saliba
41
Abbreviations
α Distribution half-life AUC Area under the curve β Terminal half-life Cl Clearance Cmax Maximum concentration Cmaxss Steady-state maximum concentration Css Steady-state concentration CYP Cytochrome P450 F Bioavailability fT>MIC Free concentration time above minimum
inhibitory concentration ICU Intensive care unit Ke Elimination constant LD Loading dose LOS Length of stay MIC Minimum inhibitory concentration PD Pharmacodynamics PK Pharmacokinetics PK/PD Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics TDM Therapeutic drug monitoring T1/2 Half-life T>MIC Time above mean inhibitory concentration Vd Volume of distribution
A.T. Gerlach, PharmD, BCPS, FCCP, FCCM (*) Department of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA e-mail: gerlach.6@osu.edu
L. Saliba, PharmD, BCPS Department of Pharmacy, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT 06510, USA e-mail: lina.saliba@ynhh.org

Introduction

The physiological responses to surgery, critical illness, and subsequent resuscitation can alter both pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) [1]. As a result of these changes, pharmacotherapy may need to be altered to produce the desired outcomes. A basic understanding of the principles of pharmacokinetics, or the movement of drugs in the body, and pharmacodynamics, the cells responses to drugs, is needed to maximize pharmacotherapy [2]. This chapter will review basic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic princi­ples and some changes in the critically ill surgical patient.

Pharmacokinetics

Pharmacokinetics is the process by which drugs are absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and eliminated by the body. It relates to the concentration of drug in the blood and various body parts and how drug moves through the body over time. These principles dictate drug dose and dosing interval, and understanding them will aid the clinician in medication selection, dosing, and appropriate monitoring. The four main pharmacokinetic parameters used in PK models are bioavail­ability (F), volume of distribution (Vd), half-life (t1/2), and clearance (Cl). In simple PK modeling, the one-compartment model assumes a drug enters into a compartment with a given volume of distribution to achieve a homogenous con­centration and is subsequently eliminated based on an elimi­nation rate constant (ke). Vasoactive catecholamines such as epinephrine and norepinephrine follow one-compartment PK model. The two-compartment model aligns better with what actually occurs in the body clinically. It accounts for a second compartment mimicking tissues and organs. A drug enters into a central compartment and distributes between the central and peripheral compartments [3]. For some very lipid soluble drugs, such as amiodarone, there are three or four compartment PK models that also account for adipose tissue. Despite underlying assumptions to simplify these
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 N.D. Martin, L.J. Kaplan (eds.), Principles of Adult Surgical Critical Care, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33341-0_41
473