Critical care in the emergency department: A physiologic assessment and outcome evaluation

被引:119
作者
Nguyen, HB
Rivers, EP
Havstad, S
Knoblich, B
Ressler, JA
Muzzin, AM
Tomlanovich, MC
机构
[1] Case Western Reserve Univ, Henry Ford Hosp, Dept Emergency Med, Detroit, MI 48202 USA
[2] Case Western Reserve Univ, Henry Ford Hosp, Dept Internal Med, Detroit, MI 48202 USA
[3] Case Western Reserve Univ, Henry Ford Hosp, Dept Surg, Detroit, MI 48202 USA
[4] Case Western Reserve Univ, Henry Ford Hosp, Dept Biostat, Detroit, MI 48202 USA
[5] Case Western Reserve Univ, Henry Ford Hosp, Dept Epidemiol, Detroit, MI 48202 USA
关键词
physiologic scoring; APACHE II; SAPS II; MODS; emergency department; critical care; outcome;
D O I
10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00492.x
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Objectives: The changing landscape of health care in this country has seen an increase in the delivery of care to critically ill patients in the emergency department (ED). However, methodologies to assess care and outcomes similar to those used in the intensive care unit (ICU) are currently lacking in this setting. This study examined the impact of ED intervention on morbidity and mortality using the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II), and the Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS). Methods: This was a prospective, observational cohort study over a three-month period. Critically ill adult patients presenting to a large urban ED and requiring ICU admission were enrolled. APACHE II, SAPS II, and MODS scores and predicted mortality were obtained at ED admission, ED discharge, and 24, 48, and 72 hours in the ICU. In-hospital mortality was recorded. Results: Eighty-one patients aged 64 +/- 18 years were enrolled during the study period, with a 30.9% in-hospital mortality. The ED length of stay was 5.9 +/- 2.7 hours and the hospital length of stay was 12.2 +/- 16.6 days. Nine (11.1%) patients initially accepted for ICU admission were later admitted to the general ward after ED intervention. Septic shock was the predominant admitting diagnosis. At ED admission, there was a significantly higher APACHE II score in nonsurvivors (23.0 +/- 6.0) vs survivors (19.8 +/- 6.5, p = 0.04), while there was no significant difference in SAPS II or MODS scores. The APACHE II, SAPS II, and MODS scores mere significantly lower in survivors than non-survivors throughout the hospital stay (p less than or equal to 0.001). The hourly rates of change (decreases) in APACHE II, SAPS II, and MODS scores were significantly greater during the ED stay (-0.55 +/- 0.64, -1.02 +/- 1.10, and -0.16 +/- 0.43, respectively) than subsequent periods of hospitalization in survivors (p < 0.05). There was a significant decrease in APACHE II and SAPS II predicted mortality during the ED stay (-8.0 +/- 14.0% and -6.0 +/- 14.0%, respectively, p < 0.001) and equally at 24 hours in the ICU (-7.0 +/- 13.0% and -4.0 +/- 16.0%, respectively, p less than or equal to 0.02). The APACHE II and SAPS II predicted mortality approached actual in-hospital mortality at approximately 12 hours and 36 hours after ED admission tin the ICU), respectively. Conclusions: The care provided during the ED stay for critically ill patients significantly impacts the progression of organ failure and mortality. Although this period is brief compared with the total length of hospitalization, physiologic determinants of outcome may be established before ICU admission. This study emphasizes the importance of ED intervention. It also suggests that unique physiologic assessment methodologies should be developed to examine the quality of patient care, improve the accuracy of prognostic decisions, and objectively measure the impact of clinical interventions and pathways in the ED setting.
引用
收藏
页码:1354 / 1361
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Revising the critical care family needs inventory for the emergency department
    Redley, B
    Beanland, C
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2004, 45 (01) : 95 - 104
  • [12] Sepsis recognition in the emergency department – impact on quality of care and outcome?
    Marius Morr
    Alexander Lukasz
    Eva Rübig
    Hermann Pavenstädt
    Philipp Kümpers
    BMC Emergency Medicine, 17
  • [13] Point-of-care critical ultrasound in a rural emergency department
    Zanatta, Mirko
    Benato, Piero
    De Battisti, Sigilfredo
    Pirozzi, Concetta
    Cianci, Vito
    EMERGENCY CARE JOURNAL, 2015, 11 (02) : 26 - 31
  • [14] Intensive care unit care in the emergency department?
    Panacek, EA
    ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1999, 6 (07) : 675 - 677
  • [15] Emergency Department Length of Stay for Critical Care Admissions A Population-based Study
    Rose, Louise
    Scales, Damon C.
    Atzema, Clare
    Burns, Karen E. A.
    Gray, Sara
    Doing, Christina
    Kiss, Alex
    Rubenfeld, Gordon
    Lee, Jacques S.
    ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY, 2016, 13 (08) : 1324 - 1332
  • [16] Clinical narrative-aware deep neural network for emergency department critical outcome prediction
    Chen, Min-Chen
    Huang, Ting-Yun
    Chen, Tzu-Ying
    Boonyarat, Panchanit
    Chang, Yung -Chun
    JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2023, 138
  • [17] Predictors of critical care admission in emergency department patients triaged as low to moderate urgency
    Considine, Julie
    Thomas, Shane
    Potter, Robyn
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2009, 65 (04) : 818 - 827
  • [18] Critical Care Delivery in the Emergency Department Bringing the Intensive Care Unit to the Patient
    Kuk, Won-Jun
    Park, Jun Soo
    Gunnerson, Kyle J.
    CRITICAL CARE CLINICS, 2024, 40 (03) : 497 - 506
  • [19] Epidemiologic and Outcome Analysis of Epistaxis in a Tertiary Care Center Emergency Department
    Bui, Roger
    Doan, Nicolette
    Chaaban, Mohamad R.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RHINOLOGY & ALLERGY, 2020, 34 (01) : 100 - 107
  • [20] Palliative Care Screening and Assessment in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review
    George, Naomi
    Phillips, Elizabeth
    Zaurova, Milana
    Song, Carolyn
    Lamba, Sangeeta
    Grudzen, Corita
    JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2016, 51 (01) : 108 - 119