Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
329
Organization of ICU
It requires intelligent planning. One must keep the
need of the hospital and its location. One ICU may not
cater to all needs. An institute may plan beds into multiple
units under separate management by single discipline
specialist viz. medical ICU, surgical ICU, CCU, burns
ICU, trauma ICU, etc. It may be useful but experience in
Australia has favoured multidisciplinary ICUs, which are
managed by specialist intensivists. Duplication of services
and equipment is to be avoided. Critically ill patients
develop the same pathophysiological process no matter
whether they are classified as medical or surgical. They
require the same approaches to support the organs. The
problems of critically ill patients do not confine to their
primary disease and the single discipline doctor lacks the
experience and expertise to deal with the complexities of
the multi-organ failure.
330
Nursing staff
Allied services
Physiotherapy, social workers, dieticians, radiology
services, respiratory therapists are a useful work force
responsible for patient management and equipment
maintenance. Biomedical department services are required
on a regular basis to service and repair and develop
equipment. Adequate secretarial assistance and reception
category makes the functioning smooth. For transport of
patients it is ideal if one can have separate teams to lift
critically ill patients and transport them to different areas.
Trained staff in this area would be very valuable
contribution.
Type of ICU
There are two types of ICUs, an open and
closed. In the former physicians admit, treat and
discharge and in the latter the admission, discharge and
referral policies are under the control of intensivists.
The patient outcome, cost benefit is noted to be better
if intensivists have full clinical responsibility.9,10 In our
country where the specialist intensivist has not evolved
completely, specialists interested in the ICU care
manage, be it from anaesthesia, chest or intensivist,
when there is no provision for intensivists the persons,
usually anaesthesiologist looks after on a day-to-day
basis. The concerned specialists must spend all their
time in the ICU and get totally trained in the area. The
director should be a full time intensivist. The lines
of management have to be delineated, protocols should
be well documented and responsibilities should be
shared correctly. The policies should be formulated,
periodically reviewed, e.g. antibiotic policies and hand
washing. Microbiologist as an additional member of
the team is welcome to not only prevent and treat
infections and but to involve in infection control, antibiotic
policies, etc.
331
332
1.
2.
Quality of life Includes patients sense of wellbeing and satisfaction, which are the important
components of quality of life.
2.
ICU survival
ICU mortality provides a global impression of the
ICU performance but is affected by the factors such as
case mix, severity of illness, co-morbidity and the age of
the patients. Discharge policy whereby no terminal care is
given in ICU with hopelessly ill patients being discharged
to the general wards or if the ICU workload has a large
elective surgical component (low-risk patients) will depress
the overall mortality figure.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
3.
Hospital survival
Hospital mortality is frequently quoted as an outcome
measure following critical illness. However, it is influenced
by the care beyond ICU and represents the institutions
overall performance.
Prediction of outcome
It is the probabilistic estimation of a binary outcome
(death or survival) usually at hospital discharge. Severity
scores can be classified according to their aim; (1) to
measure the severity by assigning points according to the
severity of illness, (2) predict outcome by providing a
numerical estimate of probability of outcome (hospital
mortality) to a group of similar patients.
Severity of illness scoring systems, are not perfect,
have false positive and false negative error rate hence
prediction may be erroneous. Given their probabilistic
nature they do not predict for a specific individual.
Outcome prediction models
Outcome prediction in ICU can be made using
general outcome prediction models. Such models aim to
predict clinical status at hospital discharge, based on a
given set of variables evaluated at ICU admission or within
24 hours. So the rationale behind the construction is that
derangement of homeostasis has an adverse effect on
mortality and the magnitude of change from normal for
physiological and laboratory variables is proportional to
their effects on outcome. Using logistic regression equation
these predict outcome in a patient having a particular past
2.
3.
APACHE II or III
2.
3.
333
334
+4
+3
+1
+1
+2
+3
+4
41o
39-40.9o
38.5-38.9o
36-38.4o
34-35.9o
32-33.9o
30-31.9o
29.9o
160
130-159
110-129
70-109
50-60
180
140-179
110-139
70-109
55-69
RESPIRATORY RATE
(non-ventilated or ventilated)
50
35-49
500
350-499
25-34
200-349
PO2 > 70
ARTERIAL pH
7.7
7.6-7.69
180
160-179
6-6.9
3.5
2-3.4
HAEMATOCRIT (%)
60
50-59.9
40
20-39.9
155-159
10-11
40-54
6-9
39
< 200
12-24
49
PO2 51-70
PO2 55-60
PO 2<55
7.5-7.59
7.33-7.49
7.25-7.32
7.15-7.24
< 7.15
150-154
130-149
120-129
111-119
110
5.5-5.9
3.5-5.4
1.5-1.9
3-3.4
2.5-2.9
< 2.5
0.6-1.4
< 0.6
46-49.9
30-45.9
20-29.9
< 20
15-19.9
3-14.9
1-2.9
< 1
32-40.9
22-31.9
18-21.9
52
41-51.9
15-17.9
B) AGE POINTS
APACHE II SCORE
as follows:
insufficiency or is immumo-compromised
Sum of A + B + C
obstructive, or vascular
patients 5 patients
AGE(yrs)
POINTS
44
DEFINITIONS
45-54
55-64
65-74
75
< 15
335
12 physiological variables
Age
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
21
141
41
61
81
101
121
Relationship between the SAPS II score and the probability of death in hospital
Uniformity of fit
336
0.8
0.6
Sensitivity
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1-Specifity
Receiver operator curve for SAPS II () and MPM II (-) in the EURICUS I
study. The curves plots the sensitivity and 1-the specificity for all possible
values of the two scores.
0.8
Actual Probability
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
09
0.2
1
0.3
0.4
Acute diagnosis
0.6
0.7
0.8
337
25. Baker SP, ONeill B, Haddon W, Long WB. The injury severity
score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries
and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma 1974; 14: 187-196.
26. Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Carnazzo AJ, Copes W, Fouty WJ.
The trauma score. Crit Care Med 1981; 9: 672-676.
27. Tobiasen J, Hiebert JH, Edlich RF. Prediction of burn
mortality. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1982; 154: 711-714.
28. Child CG. The liver and portal hypertension. W.B. Saunders
Co. Philadelphia 1974.
29. Yeung H-C, Lu M-W, Martinez ET, et al. Critical care scoring
system-new concept based on haemodynamic data. Crit Care
Med 1990; 18: 1347-1351.
30. Dybowski R, Weller P, Chang R, Grant V. Prediction of
outcome in critically ill patients using artificial neural network
synthesized by genetic algorithm. Lancet 1996; 347:1146-1150.
31. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE
II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med
1985; 13: 818-829.
32. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP et al. The APACHE III
prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for
critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest 1991; 100: 1619-1636.
33. LE Gall J-R. Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new simplified acute
physiology score (SAPS II) based on a European/North
American multicentre study. JAMA 1993; 270: 2957-2963.
34. Lemeshow S, Terese D, Klar J, Avrunin JP, Gehlbach SH,
Rapoport J. Mortality probability models (MPM II) based on
an international cohort of intensive care unit patients. JAMA
1993; 270: 2478-2486.
35. Moreno R, Morais P. Outcome prediction in intensive care:
Results of a prospective, multicentre, Portuguese study.
Intensive Care Med 1997; 23: 177-186.