Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Experts Committee Consensus Statement on ICU Planning and Designing, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) guidelines on Planning and Designing Intensive care (ICU) were first developed in 2001 and later updated in 2007. These guidelines were adopted in India, many developing Nations and major Institutions including NABH. Various international professional bodies in critical care have their own position papers and guidelines on planning and designing of ICUs; being the professional body of intensivists in India ISCCM therefore addresses the subject in contemporary context relevant to our clinical practice, its variability according to specialty and subspecialty, quality, resource limitation, size and location of the institution. Aim: To have a consensus document reflecting the philosophy of ISCCM to deliver safe & quality Critical Care in India, taking into consideration the requirement of regulatory agencies (national & international) and need of people at large, including promotion of training, education and skill upgradation. It also aiming to promote leadership and development and managerial skill among the critical care team. Material and Methods: Extensive review of literature including search of databases in English language, resources of regulatory bodies, guidelines and recommendations of international critical care societies. National Survey of ISCCM members and experts to understand their viewpoints on respective issues. Visiting of different types and levels of ICUs by team members to understand prevailing practices, aspiration and Challenges. Several face to face meetings of the expert committee members in big and small groups with extensive discussions, presentations, brain storming and development of initial consensus draft. Discussion on draft through video conferencing, phone calls, Emails circulations, one to one discussion Result: Based upon extensive review, survey and input of experts' ICUs were categorized in to three levels suitable in Indian setting. Level III ICUs further divided into sub category A and B. Recommendations were grouped in to structure, equipment and services of ICU with consideration of variation in level of ICU of different category of hospitals. Conclusion: This paper summarizes consensus statement of various aspect of ICU planning and design. Defined mandatory and desirable standards of all level of ICUs and made recommendations regarding structure and layout of ICUs. Definition of intensive care and intensivist, planning for strength of ICU and requirement of manpower were also described. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Rungta N, Zirpe KG, Dixit SB, Mehta Y, Chaudhry D, Govil D, et al. Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Experts Committee Consensus Statement on ICU Planning and Designing, 2020. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 1):S43-S60.

Mapping the Characteristics of Critical Care Facilities: Assessment, Distribution, and Level of Critical Care Facilities from Central India.

BACKGROUND: In low- and middle-income countries such as India, where health systems are weak, the number of available Critical Care Unit (Intensive Care Unit [ICU]) beds is expected to be low. There is no study from the Indian subcontinent that has reported the characteristics and distribution of existing ICUs. We performed this study to understand the characteristics and distribution of ICUs in Madhya Pradesh (MP) state of Central India. We also aimed to develop a consensus scoring system and internally validate it to define levels of care and to improve health system planning and to strengthen referral networks in the state. METHODS: We obtained a list of potential ICU facilities from various sources and then performed a cross-sectional survey by visiting each facility and determining characteristics for each facility. We collected variables with respect to infrastructure, human resources, equipment, support services, procedures performed, training courses conducted, and in-place policies or standard operating procedure documents. RESULTS: We identified a total of 123 ICUs in MP. Of 123 ICUs, 35 were level 1 facilities, 74 were level 2 facilities, and only 14 were level 3 facilities. Overall, there were 0.17 facilities per 100,000 population (95* confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.20 per 100,000 populations). There were a total of 1816 ICU beds in the state, with an average of 2.5 beds per 100,000 population (95* CI 2.4-2.6 per 100,000 population). Of the total number of ICU beds, 250 are in level 1, 1141 are in level 2, and 425 are in level 3 facilities. This amounts to 0.34, 1.57, and 0.59 ICU beds per 100,000 population for levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study could just be an eye opener for our healthcare authorities at both state and national levels to estimate the proportion of ICU beds per lac population. Similar mapping of intensive care services from other States will generate national data that is hitherto unknown.

Intensive Care in India: The Indian Intensive Care Case Mix and Practice Patterns Study.

AIMS: To obtain information on organizational aspects, case mix and practices in Indian Intensive Care Units (ICUs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational, 4-day point prevalence study was performed between 2010 and 2011 in 4209 patients from 124 ICUs. ICU and patient characteristics, and interventions were recorded for 24 h of the study day, and outcomes till 30 days after the study day. Data were analyzed for 4038 adult patients from 120 ICUs. RESULTS: On the study day, mean age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores were 54.1 ± 17.1 years, 17.4 ± 9.2 and 3.8 ± 3.6, respectively. About 46.4% patients had ≥1 organ failure. Nearly, 37% and 22.2% patients received mechanical ventilation (MV) and vasopressors or inotropes, respectively. Nearly, 12.2% patients developed an infection in the ICU. About 28.3% patients had severe sepsis or septic shock (SvSpSS) during their ICU stay. About 60.7% patients without infection received antibiotics. There were 546 deaths and 183 terminal discharges (TDs) from ICU (including left against medical advice or discharged on request), with ICU mortality 729/4038 (18.1%). In 1627 patients admitted within 24 h of the study day, the standardized mortality ratio was 0.67. The APACHE II and SOFA scores, public hospital ICUs, medical ICUs, inadequately equipped ICUs, medical admission, self-paying patient, presence of SvSpSS, acute respiratory failure or cancer, need for a fluid bolus, and MV were independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The high proportion of TDs and the association of public hospitals, self-paying patients, and inadequately equipped hospitals with mortality has important implications for critical care in India.