Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Critical care delivery in the United States: Distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations*

Angus, Derek C. MD, MPH; Shorr, Andrew F. MD, MPH; White, Alan PhD; Dremsizov, Tony T. MBA; Schmitz, Robert J. PhD; Kelley, Mark A. MD; on behalf of the Committee on Manpower for Pulmonary and Critical Care Societies (COMPACCS)

doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000206105.05626.15
Clinical Investigations

Objectives: To describe the organization and distribution of intensive care unit (ICU) patients and services in the United States and to determine ICU physician staffing before the publication and dissemination of the Leapfrog Group ICU physician staffing recommendations.

Design and Setting: Stratified, weighted survey of ICU directors in the United States, performed as part of the Committee on Manpower for the Pulmonary and Critical Care Societies (COMPACCS) study. Using lenient definitions, we defined an ICU as “high intensity” if ≥80% of patients were cared for by a critical care physician (intensivist) and defined an ICU as compliant with Leapfrog if it was both high-intensity and providing some form of in-house physician coverage during all hours.

Subjects: Three hundred ninety-three ICU directors.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and Main Results: We obtained a 33.5% response rate (393/1,173). We estimated there were 5,980 ICUs in the United States, caring for approximately 55,000 patients per day, with at least one ICU in all acute care hospitals. The predominant reasons for admission were respiratory insufficiency, postoperative care, and heart failure. Most ICUs were combined medical-surgical ICUs (n = 3,865; 65%), were located in nonteaching, community hospitals (n = 4,245; 71%), and were in hospitals of <300 beds (n = 3,710; 62%). One in four ICUs were high-intensity (n = 1,578; 26%), half had no intensivist coverage (n = 3,183; 53%), and the remainder had at least some intensivist presence (n = 1,219; 20%). High-intensity units were more common in larger hospitals (p = .001) and in teaching hospitals (p < .001) and more likely to be surgical (p < .001) or trauma ICUs (p < .001). Few ICUs had any in-house physician coverage outside weekday daylight hours (20% during weekend days, 12% during weeknights, and 10% during weekend nights). Only 4% (n = 255) of all adult ICUs in the United States appeared to meet the full Leapfrog standards (a high-intensity ICU staffing pattern plus dedicated attending coverage during daytime plus dedicated coverage by any physician during nighttime).

Conclusions: ICU services are widely distributed but heterogeneously organized in the United States. Although high-intensity ICUs have been associated previously with improved outcomes, they were infrequent in our study, especially in smaller hospitals, and virtually no ICU met the Leapfrog standards before their dissemination. These findings highlight the considerable challenge to any efforts designed to promote either 24-hr physician coverage or high-intensity model organization.

From the CRISMA (Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness) Laboratory, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Public Health, and Center for Research on Health Care (DCA, TTD), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Service, Department of Medicine, Washington Hospital Center, (AFS), Washington, DC; Abt Associates (AW), Cambridge, MA; Mathematica Policy Research (RJS), Cambridge, MA; and Henry Ford Medical Group (MAK), Detroit, MI.

Committee members are listed at the end of the text.

The authors have no financial interest to disclose.

Supported in part by a grant from the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Thoracic Society, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

© 2006 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins