Author
Listed:
- Ravindranath Tiruvoipati
- John Botha
- Jason Fletcher
- Himangsu Gangopadhyay
- Mainak Majumdar
- Sanjiv Vij
- Eldho Paul
- David Pilcher
- the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Clinical Trials Group
Abstract
Background: Some patients experience a delayed discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) where the intended and actual discharge times do not coincide. The clinical implications of this remain unclear. Objective: To determine the incidence and duration of delayed ICU discharge, identify the reasons for delay and evaluate the clinical consequences. Methods: Prospective multi-centre observational study involving five ICUs over a 3-month period. Delay in discharge was defined as >6 hours from the planned discharge time. The primary outcome measure was hospital length stay after ICU discharge decision. Secondary outcome measures included ICU discharge after-hours, incidence of delirium, survival to hospital discharge, discharge destination, the incidence of ICU acquired infections, revocation of ICU discharge decision, unplanned readmissions to ICU within 72 hours, review of patients admitting team after ICU discharge decision. Results: A total of 955 out of 1118 patients discharged were included in analysis. 49.9% of the patients discharge was delayed. The most common reason (74%) for delay in discharge was non-availability of ward bed. The median duration of the delay was 24 hours. On univariable analysis, the duration of hospital stay from the time of ICU discharge decision was significantly higher in patients who had ICU discharge delay (Median days-5 vs 6; p = 0.003). After-hours discharge was higher in patients whose discharge was delayed (34% Vs 10%; p
Suggested Citation
Ravindranath Tiruvoipati & John Botha & Jason Fletcher & Himangsu Gangopadhyay & Mainak Majumdar & Sanjiv Vij & Eldho Paul & David Pilcher & the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZIC, 2017.
"Intensive care discharge delay is associated with increased hospital length of stay: A multicentre prospective observational study,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-13, July.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0181827
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181827
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0181827. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.