ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Intensive Care Unit (ICU) capacity management is essential to provide high-quality healthcare for critically ill patients. Yet, consensus on the most favorable ICU design is lacking, especially whether ICUs should deliver dedicated or non-dedicated care. The decision for dedicated or non-dedicated ICU design considers a trade-off in the degree of specialization for individual patient care and efficient use of resources for society. We aim to share insights of a model simulating capacity effects for different ICU designs. Upon request, this simulation model is available for other ICUs. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was developed and used, to study the hypothetical performance of a large University Hospital ICU on occupancy, rejection, and rescheduling rates for a dedicated and non-dedicated ICU design in four different scenarios. These scenarios either simulate the base-case situation of the local ICU, varying bed capacity levels, potential effects of reduced length of stay for a dedicated design and unexpected increased inflow of unplanned patients. RESULTS: The simulation model provided insights to foresee effects of capacity choices that should be made. The non-dedicated ICU design outperformed the dedicated ICU design in terms of efficient use of scarce resources. CONCLUSIONS: The choice to use dedicated ICUs does not only affect the clinical outcome, but also rejection- rescheduling and occupancy rates. Our analysis of a large university hospital demonstrates how such a model can support decision making on ICU design, in conjunction with other operation characteristics such as staffing and quality management.
Subject(s)
Intensive Care Units , Quality Improvement , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Humans , Computer Simulation , Hospitals, University , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Decision Making , Decision Making, OrganizationalABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recommendations regarding personalized lung cancer screening are being informed by natural-history modeling. Therefore, understanding how differences in model assumptions affect model-based personalized screening recommendations is essential. DESIGN: Five Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models were evaluated. Lung cancer incidence, mortality, and stage distributions were compared across 4 theoretical scenarios to assess model assumptions regarding 1) sojourn times, 2) stage-specific sensitivities, and 3) screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions. Analyses were stratified by sex and smoking behavior. RESULTS: Most cancers had sojourn times <5 y (model range [MR]; lowest to highest value across models: 83.5%-98.7% of cancers). However, cancer aggressiveness still varied across models, as demonstrated by differences in proportions of cancers with sojourn times <2 y (MR: 42.5%-64.6%) and 2 to 4 y (MR: 28.8%-43.6%). Stage-specific sensitivity varied, particularly for stage I (MR: 31.3%-91.5%). Screening reduced stage IV incidence in most models for 1 y postscreening; increased sensitivity prolonged this period to 2 to 5 y. Screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions among lung cancers detected at screening ranged widely (MR: 14.6%-48.9%), demonstrating variations in modeled treatment effectiveness of screen-detected cases. All models assumed longer sojourn times and greater screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions for women. Models assuming differences in cancer epidemiology by smoking behaviors assumed shorter sojourn times and lower screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions for heavy smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Model-based personalized screening recommendations are primarily driven by assumptions regarding sojourn times (favoring longer intervals for groups more likely to develop less aggressive cancers), sensitivity (higher sensitivities favoring longer intervals), and screening-induced mortality reductions (greater reductions favoring shorter intervals). IMPLICATIONS: Models suggest longer screening intervals may be feasible and benefits may be greater for women and light smokers. HIGHLIGHTS: Natural-history models are increasingly used to inform lung cancer screening, but causes for variations between models are difficult to assess.This is the first evaluation of these causes and their impact on personalized screening recommendations through easily interpretable metrics.Models vary regarding sojourn times, stage-specific sensitivities, and screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions.Model outcomes were similar in predicting greater screening benefits for women and potentially light smokers. Longer screening intervals may be feasible for women and light smokers.
Subject(s)
Early Detection of Cancer , Lung Neoplasms , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/mortality , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Early Detection of Cancer/standards , Female , Male , Middle Aged , Aged , Smoking/adverse effects , Smoking/epidemiology , Incidence , Precision Medicine/methods , Neoplasm StagingABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the current state of mental health within the surgical workforce in the United States. BACKGROUND: Mental illness and suicide is a growing concern in the medical community; however, the current state is largely unknown. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of the academic surgery community assessing mental health, medical error, and suicidal ideation. The odds of suicidal ideation adjusting for sex, prior mental health diagnosis, and validated scales screening for depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and alcohol use disorder were assessed. RESULTS: Of 622 participating medical students, trainees, and surgeons (estimated response rate=11.4%-14.0%), 26.1% (141/539) reported a previous mental health diagnosis. In all, 15.9% (83/523) of respondents screened positive for current depression, 18.4% (98/533) for anxiety, 11.0% (56/510) for alcohol use disorder, and 17.3% (36/208) for PTSD. Medical error was associated with depression (30.7% vs. 13.3%, P <0.001), anxiety (31.6% vs. 16.2%, P =0.001), PTSD (12.8% vs. 5.6%, P =0.018), and hazardous alcohol consumption (18.7% vs. 9.7%, P =0.022). Overall, 13.2% (73/551) of respondents reported suicidal ideation in the past year and 9.6% (51/533) in the past 2 weeks. On adjusted analysis, a previous history of a mental health disorder (aOR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.04-3.65, P =0.033) and screening positive for depression (aOR: 4.30, 95% CI: 2.21-8.29, P <0.001) or PTSD (aOR: 3.93, 95% CI: 1.61-9.44, P =0.002) were associated with increased odds of suicidal ideation over the past 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 7 respondents reported suicidal ideation in the past year. Mental illness and suicidal ideation are significant problems among the surgical workforce in the United States.
Subject(s)
Alcoholism , Suicide , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Mental Health , Alcoholism/epidemiology , Alcoholism/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Risk Factors , Suicidal Ideation , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/psychologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: There is growing interest in the use of adaptive designs to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. We apply a Bayesian decision-theoretic model of a sequential experiment using cost and outcome data from the ProFHER pragmatic trial. We assess the model's potential for delivering value-based research. METHODS: Using parameter values estimated from the ProFHER pragmatic trial, including the costs of carrying out the trial, we establish when the trial could have stopped, had the model's value-based stopping rule been used. We use a bootstrap analysis and simulation study to assess a range of operating characteristics, which we compare with a fixed sample size design which does not allow for early stopping. RESULTS: We estimate that application of the model could have stopped the ProFHER trial early, reducing the sample size by about 14%, saving about 5% of the research budget and resulting in a technology recommendation which was the same as that of the trial. The bootstrap analysis suggests that the expected sample size would have been 38% lower, saving around 13% of the research budget, with a probability of 0.92 of making the same technology recommendation decision. It also shows a large degree of variability in the trial's sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits to trial cost stewardship may be achieved by monitoring trial data as they accumulate and using a stopping rule which balances the benefit of obtaining more information through continued recruitment with the cost of obtaining that information. We present recommendations for further research investigating the application of value-based sequential designs.