Impact of institutional case volume on intensive care unit mortality

7Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The primary aim of this review is to explore current knowledge on the relationship between institutional intensive care unit (ICU) patient volume and patient outcomes. Studies indicate that a higher institutional ICU patient volume is positively correlated with patient survival. Although the exact mechanism underlying this association remains unclear, several studies have proposed that the cumulative experience of physicians and selective referral between institutions may play a role. The overall ICU mortality rate in Korea is relatively high compared to other developed countries. A distinctive aspect of critical care in Korea is the existence of significant disparities in the quality of care and services provided across regions and hospitals. Addressing these disparities and optimizing the management of critically ill patients necessitates thoroughly trained intensivists who are well-versed in the latest clinical practice guidelines. A fully functioning unit with adequate patient throughput is also essential for maintaining consistent and reliable quality of patient care. However, the positive impact of ICU volume on mortality outcomes is also linked to complex organizational factors, such as multidisciplinary rounds, nurse staffing and education, the presence of a clinical pharmacist, care protocols for weaning and sedation, and a culture of teamwork and communication. Despite some inconsistencies in the association between ICU patient volume and patient outcomes, which are thought to arise from differences in healthcare systems, ICU case volume significantly affects patient outcomes and should be taken into account when formulating related healthcare policies.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kang, C., & Ryu, H. G. (2023). Impact of institutional case volume on intensive care unit mortality. Acute and Critical Care, 38(2), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2023.00689

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free