Chapter 88 Quality Assurance and Patient Safety in The Intensive Care Unit
4 List the uses to which severity of illness scoring systems are commonly applied
Stratification: Multiple scoring systems exist to stratify the severity or acuity of illness of critically ill patients. Examples of such classification systems are the:
These systems allow comparison of outcomes related to differing therapeutic approaches and attempt to match patients for severity of illness. The multiple scoring systems have not been compared in a prospective manner. Scoring systems for specific disease processes in critically ill patients exist, such as the risk, injury, failure, loss (complete loss of kidney function × 4 weeks) and end-stage kidney disease (complete loss of kidney function × 3 months) (RIFLE) criteria for kidney injury. Disease-specific scoring systems allow for standardized assessment enabling uniformity for research.
Efficiency of care delivery: Efficiency can be measured only if objective measures of resources are used together with models that define a population’s acuity of illness. It is important that the stratification of illness models have some validity in predicting outcome. These may be provided by the APACHE system and the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System, among others.
Decision making in clinical management: Decision making may be aided by considering the information provided by scoring systems as these models allow physicians to stratify patients into cohorts. However, clinicians must be cognizant that scoring systems provide population illness overview, not specific patient prognosis. Individual patient data must be used when providing prognostic information for patients and their families.
Economics: Scoring of patients can assist in appropriate billing and reimbursement code application.
6 List a number of observations on which to base assessment of outcome
Patient satisfaction: This should include not only the patient’s subjective opinions but also some objective observations of outcome such as activities of daily living scores. A significantly understudied aspect of this parameter is the posthospital status of the patient.
Length of stay: The length of stay both in the hospital and in the ICU for patients who have been stratified by diagnosis, acuity, and comorbidities on admission provides valuable insight into outcomes and an excellent database for benchmarking, if studied consistently over a reasonable period.
Mortality indexed to severity of illness: Although this information can provide a simple benchmarking tool, the data should be critically reviewed because death cannot always be equated with a bad outcome.
Incidence of unanticipated returns to the ICU during the same hospital stay: This indicator may yield important information if examined in some detail. In addition to the actual incidence (which can be used for benchmarking), the individual cases should be reviewed. This may reveal a need to review the criteria for transferring patients from the unit or the compliance with the same. Alternatively, it may stimulate consideration of the adequacy of the care capabilities of the environments receiving the patients on discharge from the unit.
Incidence of complications: Complications may be linked to procedures (e.g., line placement, endotracheal intubation) or to general management (e.g., nosocomial infection, medication errors). Of major importance are those that have a clear impact on patient welfare. The criteria for identifying these and the methodology for data collection and analysis should be defined and consistently applied.