Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Health

Comarow on Quality Graphic

Are Hospitals Overdosing on Intensive Care?

June 02, 2008 05:01 PM ET | Avery Comarow | Permanent Link | Print

If you are very, very sick—so sick you have to be admitted to an intensive care unit, draped with tubes and IVs and catheters and sensors, fluids going in and coming out—what kind of physician should be at your side? An intensivist, of course. Many studies, including an exhaustive 2002 analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association of the value of these specialists (pulmonologists, internists, and other physicians with specific training in critical-care medicine) concluded that the greater their role in the ICU, the lower the risk of death. This makes sense. Intensivists are experts in managing such fragile patients.

Then how to explain an unsettling study, out Tuesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, that reaches exactly the opposite conclusion? The paper, which analyzed the care of more than 100,000 patients in 123 ICUs at U.S. hospitals, found that the chance of death was higher for ICU patients whose care was handled by critical-care specialists than for patients overseen by the admitting surgeon or other physicians lacking specialized training. Researchers adjusted for age, sex, severity of illness, length of stay prior to the ICU, and other factors. They call their results "surprising and completely contrary to previously published findings." No kidding.

Authors of studies that break new ground may suggest this or that possible cause, but they wouldn't dare to do more than toss out educated guesses. Going beyond that is up to the researchers who trail in their wake and will be looking for explanations (and holes in the analysis). The two authors of an accompanying editorial opined that "[The] study will remain one observation against many" until it is backed up with further data. (One of the two was an author of the 2002 JAMA study.)

That's a completely reasonable point, but a couple of possible explanations suggested in the Annals study rang a familiar bell. Last week, I wrote about new hospital rankings from Consumer Reports that are based on how many days Medicare patients with certain conditions spent in the hospital during the two years before they died and how many times they were visited by physicians while they were there. Lots of care not only wastes dollars and resources—it isn't always better for patients. It can even increase the possibility that they will die.

Well, no other part of a hospital, other than the ER and neonatal unit, brings more of the full force of medical care to bear than an ICU. Perhaps, the study authors propose, "cumulative use of more interventions may take a negative toll." Specialists in intensive care, "because of their familiarity and expertise with procedures...may use more procedures that subsequently lead to more complications. Their use of more procedures, such as placement of catheters and other invasive devices, may make critically ill patients more susceptible to life-threatening infections."

That might turn out to be flat wrong or right on, but the upside-down results of this study are too important not to follow up. When discussing hospital quality and safety, it is vital to keep asking: What do we know? What, on the other hand, do we only think we know?

Tags: doctors | hospitals

Tools: Share | | Comments (3) | Print

Reader Comments

study criteria

I read the paper this AM. Unfortunately, to be analyzed as a patient cared for by an "intensivist," you merely needed one encounter recorded. THerefore, it says nothing about the system of care, as the authors point out. A closed unit vs. open unit with criitical care docs episodically visiting are equivalent in their analysys. I think the conclusions are thought provoking, but my sense is the findings will be overhyped with clearly understanding what is being examined.

Intensivists increases mortality

This is an interestng paper, however the critically ill patients have so many variables that makes it difficult to evaluate and study. I expect further analysis of this data and also a lot more investigations to prove or disprove this information.

Intensivists and Patient Mortality

This is an interesting twist in the trend of ICU data. My suspicion is that the answer is more basic. On average in today's hospitals, sicker patients get taken care of by intensivists. The clinical indication of severity that necessitates intensive care readily confounds the ability to make comparisions (ie Indicational Confounding). Unfortunately, this is not readily accounted for in regression models.

So, it's likely back to the basics: sicker patients die more frequently; Intensivists take care of sicker patients; Patients of intensivists are more likely to die. QED.

Add your thoughts

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

advertisement

Avery Comarow

U.S. News's Avery Comarow has been editor of the America's Best Hospitals annual rankings since their debut in 1990. In his reporting on all aspects of clinical medicine from the latest cholesterol guidelines to robotic surgery, he has kept one question in the front of his mind: What does this mean to patients? That perspective uniquely qualifies him to observe and comment on the efforts by hospitals and other healthcare providers to improve care and patient safety.

advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Sign up today for the latest headlines from U.S. News & World Report delivered to you free.

RSS FEEDS

Personalize your U.S. News with our feeds of blogs and breaking news headlines.

U.S. NEWS MOBILE

U.S. News daily briefings are also available on your mobile device.

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.