Centre Case Mix Programme Research Articles

Relationship between height and outcomes among critically ill adults: a cohort study.

Many diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for critically ill adult patients are not performed according to patient size, but are standardized for an idealized 174-cm man (ideal body weight 70kg). This study aims to determine whether critically ill patients with heights significantly different from a standardized patient have higher hospital mortality or greater resource utilization. Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients admitted to 210 intensive care units (ICUs) in the United Kingdom participating in the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre's Case Mix Programme Database from April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2015. Primary outcome was hospital mortality, adjusted for age, comorbid disease, severity of illness, socioeconomic status and body mass index, using hierarchical modeling to account for clustering by ICU. Data were stratified by sex, and the effect of height was modeled continuously using restricted cubic splines. The cohort included 233,308 men and 184,070 women, with overall hospital mortality of 22.5% and 20.6%, respectively. After adjustment for potential confounders, hospital mortality decreased with increasing height; predicted mortality (holding all other covariates at their mean value) decreased from 24.1 to 17.1% for women and from 29.2 to 21.0% for men across the range of heights. Similar patterns were observed for ICU mortality and several additional secondary outcomes. Short stature may be a risk factor for mortality in critically ill patients. Further work is needed to determine which unmeasured patient characteristics and processes of care may contribute to the increased risk observed.

Design and internal validation of an obstetric early warning score: secondary analysis of the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre Case Mix Programme database

We designed and internally validated an aggregate weighted early warning scoring system specific to the obstetric population that has the potential for use in the ward environment. Direct obstetric admissions from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre's Case Mix Programme Database were randomly allocated to model development (n = 2240) or validation (n = 2200) sets. Physiological variables collected during the first 24 h of critical care admission were analysed. Logistic regression analysis for mortality in the model development set was initially used to create a statistically based early warning score. The statistical score was then modified to create a clinically acceptable early warning score. Important features of this clinical obstetric early warning score are that the variables are weighted according to their statistical importance, a surrogate for the FI O2 /Pa O2 relationship is included, conscious level is assessed using a simplified alert/not alert variable, and the score, trigger thresholds and response are consistent with the new non-obstetric National Early Warning Score system. The statistical and clinical early warning scores were internally validated using the validation set. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.995 (95% CI 0.992-0.998) for the statistical score and 0.957 (95% CI 0.923-0.991) for the clinical score. Pre-existing empirically designed early warning scores were also validated in the same way for comparison. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.955 (95% CI 0.922-0.988) for Swanton et al.'s Modified Early Obstetric Warning System, 0.937 (95% CI 0.884-0.991) for the obstetric early warning score suggested in the 2003-2005 Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the UK, and 0.973 (95% CI 0.957-0.989) for the non-obstetric National Early Warning Score. This highlights that the new clinical obstetric early warning score has an excellent ability to discriminate survivors from non-survivors in this critical care data set. Further work is needed to validate our new clinical early warning score externally in the obstetric ward environment.

Using clinical databases to evaluate healthcare interventions

The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of conducting rigorous, nonrandomized studies (NRSs) of healthcare interventions using existing clinical databases in terms of the following: recruiting a large representative sample of hospitals, identifying eligible cases, matching cases to controls to achieve similar baseline characteristics, making meaningful comparisons of outcomes, and carrying out subgroup analyses. Data were extracted from the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre's Case Mix Programme Database to investigate the impact of management with a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Participating ICUs were invited to collect additional data for the analysis. Patients managed with a PAC were matched to control patients on their propensity score. Hospital mortality was then compared between the two groups. Of 117 eligible ICUs, 68 (58 percent) agreed to participate, of which 57 (84 percent) collected additional data. Although a slightly higher proportion of larger ICUs in university hospitals participated, the patient case-mix was similar to that in nonparticipating ICUs. Almost all patients managed with a PAC (98 percent) were successfully matched to patients managed without a PAC. The two groups were similar for baseline characteristics. However, hospital mortality was worse for PAC patients than for non-PAC patients (odds ratio, 1.28; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.06-1.55). Subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of management with a PAC was modified by severity of illness. Rigorous NRSs are feasible if they are based on data from high-quality clinical databases. However, the reliability of estimated treatment effects from such studies requires further investigation.

Case mix, outcome and length of stay for admissions to adult, general critical care units in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme Database.

The present paper describes the methods of data collection and validation employed in the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme (CMP), a national comparative audit of outcome for adult, critical care admissions. The paper also describes the case mix, outcome and activity of the admissions in the Case Mix Programme Database (CMPD). The CMP collects data on consecutive admissions to adult, general critical care units in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Explicit steps are taken to ensure the accuracy of the data, including use of a dataset specification, of initial and refresher training courses, and of local and central validation of submitted data for incomplete, illogical and inconsistent values. Criteria for evaluating clinical databases developed by the Directory of Clinical Databases were applied to the CMPD. The case mix, outcome and activity for all admissions were briefly summarised. The mean quality level achieved by the CMPD for the 10 Directory of Clinical Databases criteria was 3.4 (on a scale of 1 = worst to 4 = best). The CMPD contained validated data on 129,647 admissions to 128 units. The median age was 63 years, and 59% were male. The mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 16.5. Mortality was 20.3% in the CMP unit and was 30.8% at ultimate discharge from hospital. Nonsurvivors stayed longer in intensive care than did survivors (median 2.0 days versus 1.7 days in the CMP unit) but had a shorter total hospital length of stay (9 days versus 16 days). Results for the CMPD were comparable with results from other published reports of UK critical care admissions. The CMP uses rigorous methods to ensure data are complete, valid and reliable. The CMP scores well against published criteria for high-quality clinical databases.

Case mix, outcome and length of stay for admissions to adult, general critical care units in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme Database

IntroductionThe present paper describes the methods of data collection and validation employed in the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme (CMP), a national comparative audit of outcome for adult, critical care admissions. The paper also describes the case mix, outcome and activity of the admissions in the Case Mix Programme Database (CMPD).MethodsThe CMP collects data on consecutive admissions to adult, general critical care units in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Explicit steps are taken to ensure the accuracy of the data, including use of a dataset specification, of initial and refresher training courses, and of local and central validation of submitted data for incomplete, illogical and inconsistent values. Criteria for evaluating clinical databases developed by the Directory of Clinical Databases were applied to the CMPD. The case mix, outcome and activity for all admissions were briefly summarised.ResultsThe mean quality level achieved by the CMPD for the 10 Directory of Clinical Databases criteria was 3.4 (on a scale of 1 = worst to 4 = best). The CMPD contained validated data on 129,647 admissions to 128 units. The median age was 63 years, and 59% were male. The mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 16.5. Mortality was 20.3% in the CMP unit and was 30.8% at ultimate discharge from hospital. Nonsurvivors stayed longer in intensive care than did survivors (median 2.0 days versus 1.7 days in the CMP unit) but had a shorter total hospital length of stay (9 days versus 16 days). Results for the CMPD were comparable with results from other published reports of UK critical care admissions.ConclusionsThe CMP uses rigorous methods to ensure data are complete, valid and reliable. The CMP scores well against published criteria for high-quality clinical databases.