Intensivist Involvement in Indian ICU and Impact on outcome 5 I study Background: Since “Leapfrog initiative” intensivist driven critical care with 7 days of the week, with no other clinical duties in the ICU resulted in improved outcome. Thereafter, most of the published literature from developed world favored the intensivist based care and multidisciplinary care in managing critically ill patients. However, some of the reports challenged this school of thoughts. Some of the results are difficult to compare being diversity bias in definition used. Often used are the three traditional models – open, transitional or mandatory ICU consult and Closed. Variations like semi-closed or semi-open also exist but are not well defined Intent: Diversity in intensive care in India is higher than rest of the high middle- income and developed world in many aspects. There are medical, surgical, mixed and super specialty ICU with various degree intensivist involvement. How to best organize and deliver intensive care with CCM as super specialty and scarcity of resources is a matter of debate. Patients characteristics, infection pattern, infrastructure, intensivist’s involvement and role, processes and standard of care are variable in various set ups. Need of the study Since inception of ICU in about 1950s, ICU bed strength over decades is going on increasing and currently, due to increasing life expectancy and resources, the bed-strength is increasing to about 20 percent of the total hospital beds and is expected to rise to 50 percent in next decade. There are reports in literature that suggest that trained intensivist coverage was associated with lower in-hospital and 1 year mortality rates. There are questions like type of critical care model focusing on patient safety, cost effectiveness and utility, ICU beds per population density, proving high quality care at the lowest costs etc. Secondly, there is scarcity of resources to match the demand, even in the developed world, which was very obvious during the COVID pandemic. Intensive care is highly demanding in terms of both kinds of resources, man and material. ICU is a complex model of health care system where most of resource utilization and expenditure takes place. So, we need to have the best cost-effective or cost-utilization model. Health economic evaluations are increasingly common in the critical care literature, and include highly qualified professional assistance, costly equipment and economical gains are represented by patient outcome, as life and years saved. In this national study, we hypothesize that intensivist based care leads to improved mortality and other clinical outcome parameters and at the same time to find the best care model. Aims: To determine the effect of different levels of intensivist involvement models on clinical outcomes for critically ill patients in Indian ICUs and to determine impact of the different models of intensivist involvement on patient outcome and resource utilization. Primary objectives 1. Quantification of Intensivist’s involvement in multiple ICUs at national level 2. Impact on ICU discharge and hospital mortality with different degree of intensivist involvement Secondary objectives 1. Life adjusted gain years 2. LAMA patients’ characteristics analysis based on different ICU care model Inclusion: 1. Interested hospitals with minimal bed capacity of 10 ICU beds 2. ICUs that routinely record mortality and nosocomial infection rates Exclusion: Nil Methodology Design- Prospective, observational, multicenter Duration of study: Discharge or death of the enrolled patients Recruitment: Two-point recruitment one month apart for 5 specified days in each session Sample Size calculation Risk reduction by 5 percent Data collection: Data will be collected for minimum of 20 patients from each center. Two random periods of 5 days will be selected in two successive months. Existing10 patients in each session will be enrolled. APACHE II score and risk of mortality will be calculated within the 24 hours after ICU admission Note: In India presently, there are more than 500 PG, DM and DNB seats in CCM and IDCCM, in approximately 100 institutes. Even if we enroll 50percent, 50 institutes all over the country, 1000 patients. Data will be collected on pre-structured CRF that will be divide into 4 sections National survey will be done through ICU Research Net or ISCCM portal for infrastructure and processes as follows. Part I- Personal information, once at the time of enrollment of Centre Part II- Infrastructure,once at the time of enrollment of Centre Part III- Patient data, disease severity, APACHE-II score, procedures performed Part IV- Outcome, number of deaths, number of LAMA, etc Part B secondary objectives All hospitals or institutes including teaching and nonteaching where DM, Dr NB, and ISCCM conducted courses in Critical Care, will be approached via ICU Research Net. Administrative level of involvement, care involvement, services level, consultant or resident based or mandatory or lead type or service type. Critical Nursing standards Accreditation with national and international agencies. ICUs that are willing to participate for outcome analysis will be enrolled further. For this analysis, all included ICUs will be categorized into three groups. Group I Closed ICU patient admitted under the ICU team and all decisions made by the ICU team. Group II Mandatory Critical Care Consultation patient remains admitted under primary specialty but all patients in ICU are seen by the ICU team Group III Open ICU or ICU managed by non-intensivist ICU physician and intensivist call on SOS basis and decision given by primary consultant most of the times or no intensivist involvement at all. Subgroup analysis Subgroup analyses of clinical outcomes will be also conducted. Stratification into subgroups by 1. Age 2. Surgical Vs Non-Surgical 3. SOFA Scores 4. Super specialty vs Broad specialty eg A patient admitted under a physician for stroke is broad specialty MD physician or super specialty,Neuro problem 5. Type of hospital: Private vs General or University Affiliated vs non The ICU discharge, mortality rates and in-hospital mortality rates, will be compared according to these subgroups. |