The Health-Economic Impact of a Prospectively Validated Severity of Illness Predictor for Adult Critical Care

Main Article Content

Andrew A. Kramer, PhD, FCCM Sandra Kane-Gill, PharmD, FCCM Joseph Dasta, MS, FCCM Paula Maurer, BSN

Abstract

Background: The ViSIG system, a clinical decision support system for adult intensive care units, was previously shown to be associated with significant reductions in length of stay, readmissions, and duration of mechanical ventilation. However, the health-economic benefits of ViSIG have yet to be fully understood. Infections and acute kidney injury are two measures of clinical significance with key financial implications, and their reduction could further strengthen the published association of ViSIG use with improved outcomes. Further, it is important to demonstrate the economic benefit of ViSIG for its widespread adoption by ICUs.


Objective: To investigate the potential health-economic benefits associated with using a previously validated clinical decision support system, ViSIG.


Study Design and Methods: In this study, we analyzed data from a previous analysis of ViSIG. The study cohort consisted of six ICUs at two hospitals, with a total of 2,256 admissions in the 'Blinded' Phase and 1,890 admissions in the 'Visible' Phase. We compared the frequency of new infections and Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) between the two phases and used multivariable mixed models to adjust for each patient’s severity of illness. To estimate the economic benefit of ViSIG, we calculated the mean total charges per patient for each phase and the change in patient throughput to arrive at a net gain/loss annual total charges per bed.


Results: In the Visible Phase, infections declined by 40.5% (p<0.001). When adjusted for patient severity of illness, the Visible Phase had an odds ratio of 0.52 (95% confidence interval = 0.43, 0.62).  There was a 24.5% relative decrease in the occurrence of AKI (p<0.001) and a 35% adjusted decrease from Blinded to Visible Phase (p<0.001). The mean total charges were $59,886 and $55,821 for the Blinded and Visible Phases, respectively.  However, due to a reduced ICULOS in the Visible Phase, there was a 14.2% increase in admissions during the 90-day period. This resulted in an estimated mean increased revenue of $3,872 per patient at ICUs using ViSIG.


Conclusion: ViSIG was associated with a reduction in two major clinical events: new infections and progression to AKI. This lessened clinical burden may be associated with reduced ICULOS, which resulted in increased patient throughput and, thus, increased revenues. Future studies need to measure specific clinician actions to characterize a cause-and-effect relationship.

Article Details

How to Cite
KRAMER, Andrew A. et al. The Health-Economic Impact of a Prospectively Validated Severity of Illness Predictor for Adult Critical Care. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 12, n. 8, aug. 2024. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/5563>. Date accessed: 06 sep. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v12i8.5563.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Kramer AA, Zimmerman JE, Knaus WA. Severity of Illness and Predictive Models in the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s First 50 Years: A Tale of Concord and Conflict, Crit Care Med, 2021, 49[5]:728-740.
2. Smit JM, Krijthe JH, van Bommel. The future of artificial intelligence in intensive care: moving from predictive to actionable AI. Int Care Med, 2023; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07102-y.
3. van de Sande D , van Genderen ME, Huiskens J, et al. Moving from bytes to bedside: a systematic review on the use of artificial intelligence in the intensive care unit, Int Care Med, 2021, 47:750-760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06446-7
4. Kramer AA, Krinsley J, Lissauer M. Prospective Evaluation of a dynamic acuity score for regularly assessing a critically ill patient’s risk of mortality, Crit Care Med, 2023, 51[10]:1285-1293.
5. Kramer AA, LaFonte M, El-Husseini I, Cary R, Didcote S, Maurer P, Hastrup F, Krinsley J. Pre-Post Study of the Effectiveness of a Clinical Decision Support System (ViSIG) in Reducing Adverse Outcomes for Adult Critically Ill Patients, Informatics in Medicine Unlocked 2024, 44:10143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2023.101433
6. Melo FAF, Macedo E, Fonseca Bezerra AC, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of acute kidney injury in the intensive care units of developed and developing countries. PLoS One 2020, Jan 17;15(1):e0226325. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226325.
7. Blot S, Ruppe E, Harbath S, et al. Healthcare-associated infections in adult intensive care unit patients: Changes in epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention and contributions of new technologies. Intensive and Crit Care Nursing 2022; 70: 103227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2022.103227
8. Dasta JF, Kane-Gill S. Review of the Literature on the Costs Associated With Acute Kidney Injury. Journal of Pharmacy Practice 2019 ;32(3):292-302. doi:10.1177/0897190019852556
9. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. 2017, https://www.ahrq.gov/hai/pfp/haccost2017-results.html, last accessed December 1, 2023.
10. Zimmerman JE, Kramer AA, Malila FM, McNair DS: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV: Hospital mortality assessment for today’s critically ill patients, Crit Care Med, 2006, 34(5): 1297-1310.
11. Pastores SM, Dakwar J, Halpern NA. Costs of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med, 2012, 28:1-10. doi:10.1016/j.ccc.2011.10.003.
12. Halpern NA, Pastores SM, Critical care medicine in the United States 2000–2005: An analysis of bed numbers, occupancy rates, payer mix, and costs. Crit Care Med, 2015, 38[1]:65-71.
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b090d0
13. Bai G, Anderson GF. Extreme Markup: The Fifty US Hospitals With The Highest Charge-To-Cost Ratios, Health Affairs, 34[6]: 922-928, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.1414
14. Gershengorn HB, Garland A, Gong MN: Patterns of Daily Costs Differ for Medical and Surgical Intensive Care Unit Patients, Ann Am Thorac Soc, 2015, 12[12]:1831-1836
15. Dasta JF, McLaughlin TP, Mody SH, Piech CT: Daily cost of an intensive care unit day: the contribution of mechanical ventilation, Crit Care Med, 2006. 33[6]:1266-1271
16. Kramer AA, Dasta JK, Kane-Gill SL: The Impact of Mortality on Total Costs Within the ICU, Crit Care Med, 2017, 45[9]:1457-1463.
17. Harlan EA, Ghous M, Moscovice IS, Valley TS: Characteristics of patients hospitalized in rural and urban intensive care units from 2010 to 2019, Crit Care Med 2024, https://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/fulltext/9900/characteristics_of_patients_hospitalized_in_rural.352.aspx.
18. Rosenberg AL, Hofer TP, Strachan C, et.al: Accepting Critically Ill Transfer Patients: Adverse Effect on a Referral Center’s Outcome and Benchmark Measures, Ann Int Med 2003, 138[11]: 882-891.
19. Olafson K, Ramsey CD, Ramsey CD et al: Differences Between Intensive Care Unit Admissions Located In Rural And Urban Hospitals In A Canadian Population, Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2012, 185:A1632
20. Palevsky PM, Liu KD, Brophy PD, et al: KDOQI US Commentary on the 2012 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Kidney Injury, Am J Kid Dis, 2013, 61[5]:649-672.