Introduction: We previously showed that a "10-hour daytime on-site" and "nighttime (NT) on-call" staffing strategy was associated with higher mortality for intensive care unit (ICU) patients admitted during NT than it was for patients admitted during office hours (OH). In here, we evaluated the clinical effects of a 24-hour intensivist staffing model.
Methods: We formed an intervention group of 3034 consecutive ICU patients hospitalized from January 2013 to December 2015, and a control group of 2891 patients from our previous study (2009-2011). We applied propensity score matching (PSM) for whole and subgroup analyses adjusting for confounding factors. We compared clinical outcomes of patients under the 2 staffing models using multivariate logistic regression and survival analyses.
Results: After PSM, we balanced the clinical data between the complete cohorts and the subgroups. Comparison of ICU survivals between the intervention and control cohorts yielded no significant differences. However, the intervention was significantly associated with a higher ICU survival in the NT (5:30 pm-07:30 am) admission patients (P = .049) than in those admitted during OH (07:30 am to 5:30 pm; P = .456). Additionally, the intervention shortened the LOSHOS (P = .001) and/or LOSICU (P < .001), reduced the hospital (P = .672) and/or ICU (P = .004) expenses, and resulted in earlier mechanical ventilation extubation (P = .442) as compared to the same variables in the control group, especially for NT admissions.
Conclusions: The 24-hour intensivists staffing could significantly improve ICU outcomes, especially for NT-admission patients in high-acuity, high-volume ICUs with frequent NT admissions.
Keywords: 24-hour intensivists staffing; PSM; historical-control; outcome.