Modelling the potential increase in eligible participants in clinical trials with inclusion of community intensive care unit patients in Alberta, Canada: a decision tree analysis.

PURPOSE: Critical care research in Canada is conducted primarily in academically affiliated intensive care units (ICUs) with established research infrastructure. Efforts are made to engage community hospital ICUs in research, although the impacts of their inclusion in clinical research have never been explicitly quantified. We therefore sought to determine the number of additional eligible patients that could be recruited into critical care trials and the change in time to study completion if community ICUs were included in clinical research. METHODS: We conducted a decision tree analysis using 2018 Alberta Health Services data. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics for all ICU patients were compared against eligibility criteria from ten landmark, randomized, multicentre critical care trials. Individual patients from academic and community ICUs were assessed for eligibility in each of the ten studies, and decision tree analysis models were built based on prior inclusion and exclusion criteria from those trials. RESULTS: The number of potentially eligible patients for the ten trials ranged from 2,082 to 10,157. Potentially eligible participants from community ICUs accounted for 40.0% of total potentially eligible participants. The recruitment of community ICU patients in trials would have increased potential enrolment by an average of 64.0%. The inclusion of community ICU patients was predicted to decrease time to trial completion by a mean of 14 months (43% reduction). CONCLUSION: Inclusion of community ICU patients in critical care research trials has the potential to substantially increase enrolment and decrease time to trial completion.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La recherche en soins intensifs au Canada est principalement réalisée dans des unités de soins intensifs affiliées à des centres universitaires jouissant d'infrastructures de recherche bien établies. Des efforts ont été déployés pour engager les unités de soins intensifs des hôpitaux communautaires en recherche, mais les impacts de leur participation à la recherche clinique n'ont jamais été explicitement quantifiés. Nous avons conséquemment cherché à déterminer le nombre de patient·es additionnel·les pouvant être recruté·es dans des études de soins critiques ainsi que la variation du temps nécessaire pour compléter les études si la patientèle issue d'unités de soins intensifs d'hôpitaux communautaires participait à la recherche clinique. MéTHODE: Une analyse par arbre de décision a été réalisée à partir de données provenant des Alberta Health Services pour l'année 2018. Les données démographiques et les caractéristiques cliniques de tou·tes les patient·es admis·es aux soins intensifs ont été comparées avec les critères d'éligibilité de dix importantes études multicentriques, randomisées, contrôlées en soins intensifs. Les patient·es des unités de soins intensifs universitaires et communautaires ont tou·tes été évalué·es pour leur éligibilité à chacune des dix études, et des modèles d'arbres décisionnels ont été construits en se basant sur les critères originaux d'inclusion et d'exclusion. RéSULTATS: Le nombre de personnes potentiellement éligibles pour les dix études s'est situé entre 2082 et 10 157. Les patient·es potentiellement admissibles en provenance d'unités de soins intensifs communautaires ont représenté 40,0 % de toutes les personnes potentiellement admissibles. Le recrutement de patient·es en provenance d'unités de soins intensifs communautaires aurait permis une hausse moyenne du recrutement potentiel de 64,0 %. L'inclusion de patient·es des unités de soins intensifs communautaires pourrait également réduire le temps nécessaire à la complétion des études de 14 mois en moyenne (réduction de 43 %). CONCLUSION: L'inclusion de patient·es en provenance d'unités de soins intensifs d'hôpitaux communautaires dans la recherche clinique en soins critiques a le potentiel d'augmenter substantiellement le recrutement et de diminuer le temps nécessaire à la complétion des études.

A population-based assessment of avoidable hospitalizations and resource use of non-vaccinated patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has precipitated a prolonged public health crisis. Numerous public health protections were widely implemented. The availability of effective and safe vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presented an opportunity to resolve this crisis; however, vaccine uptake was slow and inconsistent. This study evaluated the potential for preventable hospitalizations and avoidable resource use among eligible non-vaccinated persons hospitalized for COVID-19 had these persons been vaccinated. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based cohort study. The population-at-risk were persons aged ≥ 12 years in Alberta (mid-year 2021 population ~ 4.4 million). The primary exposure was vaccination status. The primary outcome was hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2, and secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. The study inception period was 27 September 2021 to 25 January 2022. Data on COVID-19 hospitalizations, vaccination status, health services, and costs were obtained from the Government of Alberta and from the Discharge Abstract Database. RESULTS: Hospitalizations occurred in 3835, 1907, and 481 persons who were non-vaccinated, fully vaccinated, and boosted (risk of hospitalization/100,000 population: 886, 92, and 43), respectively. For non-vaccinated persons compared with fully vaccinated and boosted persons, the risk ratios (95%CI) of hospitalization were 9.7 (7.9-11.8) and 20.6 (17.9-23.6), respectively. For non-vaccinated persons, estimates of avoidable hospitalizations and bed-days used were 3439 and 36,331 if fully vaccinated and 3764 and 40,185 if boosted. Estimates of cost avoidance for non-vaccinated persons were $101.46 million if fully vaccinated and $110.24 million if boosted. CONCLUSION: Eligible non-vaccinated persons with COVID-19 had tenfold and 21-fold higher risks of hospitalization relative to whether they had been fully vaccinated or boosted, resulting in considerable avoidable hospital bed-days and costs.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) a précipité une crise de santé publique prolongée. De nombreuses mesures de protection de la santé publique ont été appliquées à grande échelle. La disponibilité de vaccins sûrs et efficaces contre le coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère 2 (SRAS-CoV-2) a présenté une occasion de résoudre la crise, mais l'acceptation de la vaccination a été lente et inégale. Dans cette étude, nous évaluons le potentiel d'hospitalisations évitables et d'utilisation évitable des ressources pour les personnes non vaccinées admissibles hospitalisées pour la COVID-19, si ces personnes avaient été vaccinées. MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude de cohorte populationnelle rétrospective. La population à risque était les personnes de ≥ 12 ans en Alberta (~ 4,4 millions au milieu de l'année 2021). Le principal risque était le statut vaccinal. Le principal résultat clinique était l'hospitalisation avec SRAS-CoV-2 confirmé, et les résultats cliniques secondaires étaient les hospitalisations évitables, les jours-lits à l'hôpital évitables et l'évitement potentiel des coûts liés à la COVID-19. La période initiale de l'étude s'est étendue du 27 septembre 2021 au 25 janvier 2022. Les données sur les hospitalisations pour la COVID-19, le statut vaccinal, les coûts et les services de santé provenaient du gouvernement de l'Alberta et de la Base de données sur les congés des patients. RéSULTATS: En tout, 3 835 personnes non vaccinées, 1 907 personnes ayant reçu tous leurs vaccins et 481 personnes ayant reçu des doses de rappel ont été hospitalisées (risque d'hospitalisation p. 100 000 personnes : 886, 92 et 43, respectivement). Pour les personnes non vaccinées, comparativement aux personnes ayant reçu tous leurs vaccins et/ou les doses de rappel, les risques relatifs d'hospitalisation (IC de 95%) étaient de 9,7 (7,9­11,8) et de 20,6 (17,9­23,6), respectivement. Selon nos estimations, les personnes non vaccinées auraient évité 3 439 hospitalisations et 36 331 jours-lits si elles avaient reçu tous leurs vaccins, et 3 764 hospitalisations et 40 185 jours-lits si elles avaient en plus reçu les doses de rappel. Nous avons aussi estimé que les personnes non vaccinées auraient évité des coûts de 101,46 millions de dollars si elles avaient reçu tous leurs vaccins et de 110,24 millions de dollars si elles avaient en plus reçu les doses de rappel. CONCLUSION: Les personnes non vaccinées admissibles ayant contracté la COVID-19 ont présenté un risque d'hospitalisation 10 fois plus élevé que si elles avaient reçu tous leurs vaccins et 21 fois plus élevé que si elles avaient en plus reçu les doses de rappel, ce qui représente des jours-lits à l'hôpital et des coûts évitables considérables.

Avoidable intensive care unit resource use and costs of unvaccinated patients with COVID-19: a historical population-based cohort study.

PURPOSE: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been proven effective at preventing poor outcomes from COVID-19; however, voluntary vaccination rates have been suboptimal. We assessed the potential avoidable intensive care unit (ICU) resource use and associated costs had unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 been fully vaccinated. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study of persons aged 12 yr or greater in Alberta (2021 population ~ 4.4 million) admitted to any ICU with COVID-19 from 6 September 2021 to 4 January 2022. We used publicly available aggregate data on COVID-19 infections, vaccination status, and health services use. Intensive care unit admissions, bed-days, lengths of stay, and costs were estimated for patients with COVID-19 and stratified by vaccination status. RESULTS: In total, 1,053 patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 were unvaccinated, 42 were partially vaccinated, and 173 were fully vaccinated (cumulative incidence 230.6, 30.8, and 5.5 patients/100,000 population, respectively). Cumulative incidence rate ratios of ICU admission were 42.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.7 to 44.9) for unvaccinated patients and 5.6 (95% CI, 4.1 to 7.6) for partially vaccinated patients when compared with fully vaccinated patients. During the study period, 1,028 avoidable ICU admissions and 13,015 bed-days were recorded for unvaccinated patients and the total avoidable costs were CAD 61.3 million. The largest opportunity to avoid ICU bed-days and costs was in unvaccinated patients aged 50 to 69 yr. CONCLUSIONS: Unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had substantially greater rates of ICU admissions, ICU bed-days, and ICU-related costs than vaccinated patients did. This increased resource use would have been potentially avoidable had these unvaccinated patients been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les vaccins contre le SRAS-CoV-2 se sont avérés efficaces pour prévenir les devenirs défavorables associés à la COVID-19; toutefois, les taux de vaccination volontaire ont été sous-optimaux. Nous avons évalué l'utilisation potentiellement évitable des ressources des unités de soins intensifs (USI) et les coûts associés si les patients non vaccinés ou partiellement vaccinés qui ont dû être hospitalisés pour la COVID-19 avaient été complètement vaccinés. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de cohorte rétrospective basée sur la population de personnes âgées de 12 ans ou plus en Alberta (population de 2021 ~ 4,4 millions) admises dans une unité de soins intensifs et atteintes de COVID-19 du 6 septembre 2021 au 4 janvier 2022. Nous avons utilisé des données agrégées accessibles au public sur les infections à la COVID-19, le statut vaccinal et l'utilisation des services de santé. Les admissions aux soins intensifs, les journées-patients, les durées de séjour et les coûts ont été estimés pour les patients atteints de la COVID-19 et stratifiés selon le statut vaccinal. RéSULTATS: Au total, 1053 patients admis à l'USI souffrant de la COVID-19 n'étaient pas vaccinés, 42 étaient partiellement vaccinés et 173 étaient complètement vaccinés (incidence cumulative 230,6, 30,8 et 5,5 patients / 100 000 habitants, respectivement). Les taux d'incidence cumulés des admissions aux soins intensifs étaient de 42,2 (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 39,7 à 44,9) pour les patients non vaccinés et de 5,6 (IC 95 %, 4,1 à 7,6) pour les patients partiellement vaccinés par rapport aux patients entièrement vaccinés. Au cours de la période à l'étude, 1028 admissions évitables aux soins intensifs et 13 015 journées-patients ont été enregistrées pour les patients non vaccinés, et les coûts totaux évitables étaient de 61,3 millions de dollars canadiens. L'économie potentielle la plus importante en matière de journées-patients et de coûts en soins intensifs touchait les patients non vaccinés âgés de 50 à 69 ans. CONCLUSION: Les patients non vaccinés atteints de COVID-19 ont affiché des taux beaucoup plus élevés d'admissions à l'USI, de journées-patients à l'USI et de coûts liés à l'USI que les patients vaccinés. Cette utilisation accrue des ressources aurait été potentiellement évitable si ces patients non vaccinés avaient été vaccinés contre le SRAS-CoV-2.

Improving the quality of the performance and delivery of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) to critically ill patients across a healthcare system: QUALITY CRRT: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is a continuous form of dialysis used to support critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. The ideal delivery of CRRT requires ongoing monitoring and reporting to adjust practice and deliver optimal therapy. However, this practice occurs variably. METHODS: QUALITY CRRT is a multicentre, prospective, stepped-wedged, interrupted time series (ITS) evaluation of the effectiveness, safety and cost of implementing a multifaceted CRRT quality assurance and improvement programme across an entire healthcare system. This study will focus on the standardisation of CRRT programmes with similar structure, process and outcome metrics by the reporting of CRRT key performance indicators (KPIs). The primary outcome will be the quarterly performance of CRRT KPIs. Secondary outcomes will include patient-centred outcomes and economic outcomes. Analysis will compare pre-implementation and post-implementation groups as well as for the performance of KPIs using an ITS methodology. The health economic evaluation will include a within-study analysis and a longer-term model-based analysis. DISCUSSION: The effective delivery of CRRT to critically ill patients ideally requires a standardised approach of best practice assessment and ongoing audit and feedback of standardised performance measures. QUALITY CRRT will test the application of this strategy stakeholder engagement and stepped-wedged implementation across an entire healthcare system. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethics approval. We will plan to publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04221932. PROTOCOL VERSION: 1.0 (15 June 2020).

Needs Assessment Survey Identifying Research Processes Which may be Improved by Automation or Artificial Intelligence: ICU Community Modeling and Artificial Intelligence to Improve Efficiency (ICU-Comma).

BACKGROUND: Critical care research in Canada is conducted primarily in academically-affiliated intensive care units with established research infrastructure, including research coordinators (RCs). Recently, efforts have been made to engage community hospital ICUs in research albeit with barriers. Automation or artificial intelligence (AI) could aid the performance of routine research tasks. It is unclear which research study processes might be improved through AI automation. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Canadian ICU research personnel. The survey contained items characterizing opinions regarding research processes that may be amenable to AI automation. We distributed the questionnaire via email distribution lists of 3 Canadian research societies. Open-ended questions were analyzed using a thematic content analysis approach. RESULTS: A total of 49 survey responses were received (response rate: 8%). Tasks that respondents felt were time-consuming/tedious/tiresome included: screening for potentially eligible patients (74%), inputting data into case report forms (65%), and preparing internal tracking logs (53%). Tasks that respondents felt could be performed by AI automation included: screening for eligible patients (59%), inputting data into case report forms (55%), preparing internal tracking logs (51%), and randomizing patients into studies (45%). Open-ended questions identified enthusiasm for AI automation to improve information accuracy and efficiency while freeing up RCs to perform tasks that require human interaction. This enthusiasm was tempered by the need for proper AI education and oversight. CONCLUSIONS: There were balanced supportive (increased efficiency and re-allocation of tasks) and challenges (informational accuracy and oversight) with regards to AI automation in ICU research.

Assessment of Costs of Avoidable Delays in Intensive Care Unit Discharge.

Importance: Delays in transfer for discharge-ready patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) are increasingly described and contribute to strained capacity. Objective: To describe the epidemiological features and health care costs attributable to potentially avoidable delays in ICU discharge in a large integrated health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study was performed in 17 adult ICUs in Alberta, Canada, from June 19, 2012, to December 31, 2016. Participants were patients 15 years or older admitted to a study ICU during the study period. Data were analyzed from October 19, 2018, to May 20, 2020. Exposures: Avoidable time in the ICU, defined as the portion of total ICU patient-days accounted for by avoidable delay in ICU discharge (eg, waiting for a ward bed). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was health care costs attributable to avoidable time in the ICU. Secondary outcomes were factors associated with avoidable time, in-hospital mortality, and measures of use of health care resources, including the number of hours in the ICU and the number of days of hospitalization. Multilevel mixed multivariable regression was used to assess associations between avoidable time and outcomes. Results: In total, 28 904 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [16.8] years; 18 030 male [62.4%]) were included. Of these, 19 964 patients (69.1%) had avoidable time during their ICU admission. The median avoidable time per patient was 7.2 (interquartile range, 2.4-27.7) hours. In multivariable analysis, male sex (odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98), comorbid hemiplegia or paraplegia (OR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.23-1.75), liver disease (OR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.37), admission Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03), surgical status (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98), medium community hospital type (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.32), and admission year (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19) were associated with avoidable time. The cumulative avoidable time was 19 373.9 days, with estimated attributable costs of CAD$34 323 522. Avoidable time accounted for 12.8% of total ICU bed-days and 6.4% of total ICU costs. Patients with avoidable time before ICU discharge showed higher unadjusted in-hospital mortality (1115 [5.6%] vs 392 [4.4%]; P < .001); however, in multivariable analysis, avoidable time was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, potentially avoidable discharge delay occurred for most patients admitted to ICUs across a large integrated health system and translated into substantial associated health care costs.

Picking the Right Tool for the Job: A Reliability Study of 4 Assessment Tools for Central Venous Catheter Insertion.

BACKGROUND: Determining procedural competence requires psychometrically sound assessment tools. A variety of instruments are available to determine procedural performance for central venous catheter (CVC) insertion, but it is not clear which ones should be used in the context of competency-based medical education. OBJECTIVE: We compared several commonly used instruments to determine which should be preferentially used to assess competence in CVC insertion. METHODS: Junior residents completing their first intensive care unit rotation between July 31, 2006, and March 9, 2007, were video-recorded performing CVC insertion on task trainer mannequins. Between June 1, 2016, and September 30, 2016, 3 experienced raters judged procedural competence on the historical video recordings of resident performance using 4 separate tools, including an itemized checklist, Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS), a critical error assessment tool, and the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE). Generalizability theory (G-theory) was used to compare the performance characteristics among the tools. A decision study predicted the optimal testing environment using the tools. RESULTS: At the time of the original recording, 127 residents rotated through intensive care units at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Seventy-seven of them (61%) met inclusion criteria, and 55 of those residents (71%) agreed to participate. Results from the generalizability study (G-study) demonstrated that scores from O-SCORE and OSATS were the most dependable. Dependability could be maintained for O-SCORE and OSATS with 2 raters. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that global rating scales, such as the OSATS or the O-SCORE tools, should be preferentially utilized for assessment of competence in CVC insertion.

Association between strained ICU capacity and healthcare costs in Canada: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care is resource intensive, with costs representing a substantial quantity of total hospitalization costs. Strained ICU capacity compromises care quality and adversely impacts outcomes; however, the association between strain and healthcare costs has not been explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Population-based cohort study performed in 17 adult ICUs in Alberta, Canada. Data were captured on hospitalizations, ambulatory care, physician services and drug dispenses occurring 1-year before and 1-year after index ICU admission. Strain was defined as occupancy ≥90%; with 21 additional definitions evaluated. Patients were categorized as strain and non-strain admissions. Costs attributable to strain, were calculated as difference-in-difference costs using propensity-score matching. RESULTS: 30,557 patients were included (strain: 11,830 [38.7%]; non-strain: 18,727 [61.3%]). At 1-year, strain admissions had adjusted-incremental per-patient cost of CA$9406 (95%CI, $5654-13,157) compared to non-strain admissions, due to hospitalization costs (CA$7930; 95%CI, $4553-11,307) and physician claims (CA$844; 95%CI, $430-1259). This equated to CA$111.3 million (95%CI, $66.9-155.6 million) in excess attributable costs. Strain portended longer hospitalization (3.3 days; 95%CI, 1.1-5.5); and more ambulatory visits (1.0; 95%CI, 0.1-2.0) and physician claims (9.5; 95%CI, 6.2-12.7). Incremental costs were robust across strain definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Admissions to ICUs experiencing strain incur incremental costs, attributed to longer hospitalization and physician services.