RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In this study, we analyze the performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, APACHE IV, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, and Mortality Probability Model (MPM)0 III in order to determine which system best implements data related to the severity of medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: The present study was a retrospective investigation analyzing the discrimination and calibration of APACHE II, APACHE IV, SAPS 3, and MPM0 III when used to evaluate medical ICU patients. Data were collected for 788 patients admitted to the ICU from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. All patients were aged 18 years or older with ICU stays of at least 24 hours. The discrimination abilities of the three systems were evaluated using c-statistics, while calibration was evaluated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. A severity correction model was created using logistics regression analysis. RESULTS: For the APACHE IV, SAPS 3, MPM0 III, and APACHE II systems, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves was 0.745 for APACHE IV, resulting in the highest discrimination among all four scoring systems. The value was 0.729 for APACHE II, 0.700 for SAP 3, and 0.670 for MPM0 III. All severity scoring systems showed good calibrations: APACHE II (chi-square, 12.540; P=0.129), APACHE IV (chi-square, 6.959; P=0.541), SAPS 3 (chi-square, 9.290; P=0.318), and MPM0 III (chi-square, 11.128; P=0.133). CONCLUSIONS: APACHE IV provided the best discrimination and calibration abilities and was useful for quality assessment and predicting mortality in medical ICU patients.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a scale to measure person-centered critical care nursing and verify its reliability and validity. METHODS: A total of 38 preliminary items on person-centered critical care nursing were selected using content validity analysis of and expert opinion on 72 candidate items derived through literature review and qualitative interviews. We conducted a questionnaire survey with 477 nurses who worked in intensive care units. The collected data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmative factor analysis (CFA) with SPSS and AMOS 24.0 program. RESULTS: EFA was performed with principal axis factor analysis and Varimax rotation. The 15 items in 4 factors that accounted for 50.8% of the total variance were identified by deleting the items that were not meet the condition that the commonality should be .30 or more and the factor loading over .40. We named the factors as compassion, individuality, respect, and comfort, respectively. The correlation coefficient between this scale and the Caring Perception Scale was r=.57 (p<.001), which determined concurrent validity. The item-total correlation values ranged from .39 to .63, and the internal consistency for the scale was Cronbach's α=.84. CONCLUSION: The reliability and validity of the 15 item person-centered critical care nursing scale were verified. It is expected that the use of this scale would expand person-centered care in critical care nursing.