MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400246512 · doi:10.1186/s13613-024-01344-9

Impact of a family support intervention on hospitalization costs and hospital readmissions among ICU patients at high risk of death or severe functional impairment

2024· article· en· W4400246512 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah K. Andersen, Chung-Chou H. Chang, Robert M. Arnold, Caroline Pidro, Joseph M. Darby, Derek C. Angus, Douglas B. White

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Intensive Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institutes of HealthUPMC EnterprisesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteGreenwall FoundationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiologyIntervention (counseling)Emergency medicineFunctional impairmentIntensive care medicineInternal medicineNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced critical illness often receive more intensive treatment than they would choose for themselves, which contributes to high health care costs near the end of life. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a family support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team decreases hospitalization costs and hospital readmissions among critically ill patients at high risk of death or severe functional impairment. RESULTS: We examined index hospitalization costs as well as post-discharge utilization of acute care hospitals, rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities, and hospice services for the PARTNER trial, a multicenter, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial of an interprofessional ICU family support intervention. We determined patients' total controllable and direct variable costs using a computerized accounting system. We determined post-discharge resource utilization (as defined above) by structured telephone interview at 6-month follow-up. We used multiple variable regression modelling to compare outcomes between groups. Compared to usual care, the PARTNER intervention resulted in significantly lower total controllable costs (geometric mean: $26,529 vs $32,105; log-linear coefficient: - 0.30; 95% CI - 0.49, - 0.11) and direct variable costs ($3912 vs $6034; - 0.33; 95% CI - 0.56, - 0.10). A larger cost reduction occurred for decedents ($20,304 vs. $26,610; - 0.66; 95% CI - 1.01, - 0.31) compared to survivors ($31,353 vs. $35,015; - 0.15; 95% CI - 0.35,0.05). A lower proportion in the intervention arm were re-admitted to an acute care hospital (34.9% vs 45.1%; 0.66; 95% CI 0.56, 0.77) or skilled nursing facility (25.3% vs 31.6%; 0.63; 95% CI 0.47, 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: A family support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team significantly decreased index hospitalization costs and readmission rates over 6-month follow-up. Trial registration Trial registration number: NCT01844492.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Intensive CareSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207