首页> 外文期刊>Anesthesia and Analgesia: Journal of the International Anesthesia Research Society >Transport of Critically Ill Patients by the Anesthesia Versus the Intensive Care Unit Service: A Before-After Study of Operating Room Workflows
【24h】

Transport of Critically Ill Patients by the Anesthesia Versus the Intensive Care Unit Service: A Before-After Study of Operating Room Workflows

机译:麻醉患者的患者与重症监护室服务的运输:在手术室工作流程之前

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: We implemented a new policy at our institution where the responsibility for intensive care unit (ICU) patient transports to the operating room (OR) was changed from the anesthesia to the ICU service. We hypothesized that this approach would be associated with increased on-time starts and decreased turnover times. METHODS: In the historical model, intubated patients or those on mechanical circulatory assistance (MCA) were transported by the anesthesia service to the OR ("pre-ICU Pickup"). In our new model, these patients are transported by the ICU service to the preoperative holding area (Pre-op) where care is transferred to the anesthesia service ("post-ICU Transfer"). If judged necessary by the ICU or anesthesia attending, the patient was transported by the anesthesia service ("post-ICU Pickup"). We retrospectively reviewed case tracking data for patients undergoing surgery before (January 2014 to May 2015) and after implementation (July 2016 to June 2017) of the new policy. The primary outcome was the proportion of elective, weekday first-case, on-time starts. To adjust for confounders including comorbidities and time trends, we performed a segmented logistic regression analysis assessing the effect of our intervention on the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were turnover times and compliance with preoperative checklist documentation. RESULTS: We identified 95 first-start and 86 turnover cases in the pre-ICU Pickup, 70 first-start and 88 turnover cases in the post-ICU Transfer, and 6 turnover cases in the post-ICU Pickup group. Ignoring time trends, the crude proportion of on-time starts increased from 32.6% in the pre-ICU Pickup to 77.1% in the post-ICU Transfer group. After segmented logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, respiratory failure, endotracheal intubation, MCA, congestive heart failure (CHF), valvular heart disease, and cardiogenic and hemorrhagic shock, the post-ICU Transfer group was more likely to have an on-time start at the start of the intervention than the pre-ICU Pickup group at the end of the preintervention period (odds ratio, 11.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-125.7; P = .043). After segmented linear regression adjusting for the above confounders, the estimated difference in mean turnover times between the post-ICU Pickup and pre-ICU Transfer group was not significant (-6.9 minutes; 95% CI, -17.09 to 3.27; P = .17). In post-ICU Transfer patients, consent, history and physical examination (H&P), and site marking were verified before leaving the ICU in 92.9%, 93.2%, and 89.2% of the cases, respectively. No adverse events were reported during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: A transition from the anesthesia to the ICU service for transporting ICU patients to the OR did not change turnover times but resulted in more on-time starts and high compliance with preoperative checklist documentation.
机译:背景:我们在我们的机构实施了新政策,其中重型监护股(ICU)患者运输到手术室(或)的责任从麻醉到ICU服务发生了变化。我们假设这种方法与随着时间的推移随着时间的推移和减少时间相关。方法:在历史模型中,通过麻醉服务到或(“前ICU拾音器”)运输插管患者或机械循环辅助(MCA)。在我们的新模型中,这些患者通过ICU服务运输到术前保持区域(普及op),其中护理转移到麻醉服务(“ICU后转移”)。如果ICU或出现麻醉必需的话,患者被麻醉服务运输(“ICU后拾音器”)。我们回顾性地审查了在2015年1月至2015年5月至2015年5月期间进行了手术的患者的案例跟踪数据,并在实施(2016年7月至2017年6月)的新政策之后。主要结果是选修日的比例,平日的第一个案例,准时开始。为了调整包括合并症和时间趋势的混淆,我们进行了分段的逻辑回归分析,评估了我们对主要结果的干预效果。二次结果是营业额时间和遵守术前清单文件。结果:我们在ICU Pre-ICU Pickup中确定了95名第一启动和86个周转案例,在第二次ICU转账中进行了第70次启动和88个周转案例,并在后ICU拾取组中的6个周转案例。忽略时间趋势,准时比例开始从ICU前ICU Pre-ICU拾取器的32.6%增加到ICU后转移组的77.1%。分段后逻辑回归调整年龄,性别,美国麻醉学家(ASA)身体状态,顺序器官衰竭评估(沙发)得分,呼吸衰竭,气管内插管,MCA,充血性心力衰竭(CHF),瓣膜心脏病和心肌疾病和出血性休克,后ICU转让组更有可能在介入开始时与预领取期末(赔率比率,11.1; 95%置信区间[CI],1.3-125.7; p = .043)。在对上述混淆的分割线性回归调整后,后ICU拾取和前ICU前转移组之间的平均周转时间估计差异不显着(-6.9分钟; 95%CI,-17.09至3.27; P = .17 )。在第二届ICU转让患者中,同意,历史和体检(H&P),并在将ICU分别达到92.9%,93.2%和89.2%的情况之前核实了现场标记。研究期间没有报告不良事件。结论:从麻醉到ICU服务的过渡,将ICU患者运送到或未改变周转时间,但导致更新的时间开始和高度遵守术前清单文件。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号