Intensive care unit admission criteria: a scoping review

Author:

Soares James1ORCID,Leung Catherine1,Campbell Victoria2,Van Der Vegt Anton3,Malycha James4,Andersen Christopher156

Affiliation:

1. Department of Intensive Care, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia

2. School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Sunshine Coast, QLD, Australia

3. Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Prince Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

4. The Central Adelaide Local Health Network Critical Care Department, Adelaide, SA, Australia

5. The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

6. Northern Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Abstract

Background: Effectively identifying deteriorated patients is vital to the development and validation of automated systems designed to predict clinical deterioration. Existing outcome measures used for this purpose have significant limitations. Published criteria for admission to high acuity inpatient areas may represent markers of patient deterioration and could inform the development of alternate outcome measures. Objectives: In this scoping review, we aimed to characterise published criteria for admission of adult inpatients to high acuity inpatient areas including intensive care units. A secondary aim was to identify variables that are extractable from electronic health records (EHRs). Data sources: Electronic databases PubMed and ProQuest EBook Central were searched to identify papers published from 1999 to date of search. We included publications which described prescriptive criteria for admission of adult inpatients to a clinical area with a higher level of care than a general hospital ward. Charting methods: Data was extracted from each publication using a standardised data-charting form. Admission criteria characteristics were summarised and cross-tabulated for each criterion by population group. Results: Five domains were identified: diagnosis-based criteria, clinical parameter criteria, organ-support criteria, organ-monitoring criteria and patient baseline criteria. Six clinical parameter-based criteria and five needs-based criteria were frequently proposed and represent variables extractable from EHRs. Thresholds for objective clinical parameter criteria varied across publications, and by disease subgroup, and universal cut-offs for criteria could not be elucidated. Conclusions: This study identified multiple criteria which may represent markers of deterioration. Many of the criteria are extractable from the EHR, making them potential candidates for future automated systems. Variability in admission criteria and associated thresholds across the literature suggests clinical deterioration is a heterogeneous phenomenon which may resist being defined as a single entity via a consensus-driven process.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3