Examining discharge outcomes and health status of critically ill patients: some practical considerations

Elliott, D; Mudaliar, YM; Kim, C

Examining discharge outcomes and health status of critically ill patients: some practical considerations

Elliott, D

Mudaliar, YM Kim, C

Permalink

Publisher:: Churchill & Livingston
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 2004, 20 pp. 367 - 377
Issue Date:: 2004-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2005004583.pdf		274.58 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Elliott, D https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6081-5442	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Mudaliar, YM	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Kim, C	en_US
dc.date.issued	2004-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 2004, 20 pp. 367 - 377	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0964-3397	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/4819
dc.description.abstract	This prospective observational study examined the outcomes of 200 consecutive admissions to an adult tertiary level Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Eligible and consenting participants were also involved in a sub-study that examined health status at four measurement points from pre-illness to 6 months postdischarge. Of the 189 individual patients admitted, 23% died in ICU and 57% were discharged home. The health status sub-study enrolled 34 participants (39% of eligible patients) who were representative of the ICU population for demographic and clinical variables. Surviving participants returned to a similar, though not identical state of health at 6 months post-discharge, when compared to their pre-ICU health-state using the 15D and SF-36 instruments. Health status at ICU discharge was significantly impaired when compared to other measurement points, particularly for mobility, breathing, eating, usual activities and vitality. A number of methodological challenges were evident, particularly for the health status sub-study, including prospective subject recruitment and retention, losses to follow-up and instrument responsiveness. Despite the limitations noted, the study provided useful findings and recommendations for the continued development of methods to examine the health status of critically ill patients.	en_US
dc.publisher	Churchill & Livingston	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Intensive and Critical Care Nursing	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Nursing	en_US
dc.title	Examining discharge outcomes and health status of critically ill patients: some practical considerations	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	20	en_US
utslib.for	1110 Nursing	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Nursing
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	false	en_US
pubs.volume	20	en_US

Abstract:

This prospective observational study examined the outcomes of 200 consecutive admissions to an adult tertiary level Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Eligible and consenting participants were also involved in a sub-study that examined health status at four measurement points from pre-illness to 6 months postdischarge. Of the 189 individual patients admitted, 23% died in ICU and 57% were discharged home. The health status sub-study enrolled 34 participants (39% of eligible patients) who were representative of the ICU population for demographic and clinical variables. Surviving participants returned to a similar, though not identical state of health at 6 months post-discharge, when compared to their pre-ICU health-state using the 15D and SF-36 instruments. Health status at ICU discharge was significantly impaired when compared to other measurement points, particularly for mobility, breathing, eating, usual activities and vitality. A number of methodological challenges were evident, particularly for the health status sub-study, including prospective subject recruitment and retention, losses to follow-up and instrument responsiveness. Despite the limitations noted, the study provided useful findings and recommendations for the continued development of methods to examine the health status of critically ill patients.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/4819