Sánchez VLD, Laurel AA, Alva LMN, Flores RE, González AVM

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 53-57
PDF size: 92.18 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: I-TISS is a tool to measure costs and nurse workload in intermediate care units, but has not been validated in the Mexican population.
Objective: To validate the intermediate therapeutic intervention grading system in the Mexican population.
Design: A prospective and comparative study in a cohort.
Setting: A polivalent intermediate care unit in a general hospital.
Patients: Adults hospitalized in the unit during study.
Interventions: None.
Measurements and principal results: Registered variables: demographic and I-TISS by treating nurse and independently by physician. The Bland and Altman method was used to measure concordance between two methods. Two hundred and two patients mean age 58.1 ± 18.1 years were included in the study. (57.9% males) and 642 pairs of measurements were carried out. The discharge status was: alive, 174 (87%), readmission to the ICU 25 (12.5%), voluntary release 3 (1.5%). Mortality rate was 0%, the bias was 0.2 (95% CI 0.05-0.73) and the concordance limits were –8 to 9.0.
Conclusion: There is an appropriate concordance between I-TISS measurements by the nurses and the measurement performed by physicians, therefore it can be used in the Mexican Intermediate Care Units.

REFERENCES

1. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP et al. APACHE II: A severity of disease classification. Crit Care Med 1985;13: 818-29.

2. Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA et al. The APACHE III prognostic system: Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest 1991;100:1619-36.

3. Cullen DJ, Civetta JM et al. Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System: A method for quantitative comparison of patient care. Crit Care Med 1974;2:57-60.

4. Keene AR, Cullen DJ. Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System: Update 1983. Crit Care Med 1983;11(1):1-3.

5. Miranda DR. The therapeutic intervention scoring system: one single tool for the evaluation of workload, the work process and management? Intensive Care Med 1997;23: 615-7.

6. Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP, Draper EA et al. Improving intensive care unit discharge decisions: supplementing physician judgment with predictions of next day risk for life support. Crit Care Med 1994; 22: 1373-84.

7. Miranda DR, Williams A, Loirat P. Management of intensive care: guidelines for better use of resources. Dordrecht: Kluwe Academic Publishers, 1990.

8. Mälstam J, Lind L. Therapeutic intervention scoring system (TISS) – a method for measuring workload and calculating costs in the ICU. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1992;36:758-63.

9. Sage WM, Rosenthal MH, Silverman JF. Is intensive care worth it? An assessment of input and outcome for the critically ill. Crit Care Med 1986;14:777-82.

10. Horst HM, Mild LJ, Farouck NO et al. The relationship of scoring systems and mortality in the surgical intensive care unit. Am Surg 1987;53:456-9.

11. Clermont G, Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lave JR, Pinsky MR. Measuring resource use in the ICU with computarized therapeutic intervention scoring system-based data. Chest 1998;113:434-42.

12. Bueno AC, Rodríguez CR, López LA, Delgado RM, Gálves VR. Usefulness of severity indices in intensive care medicine as a predictor of nosocomial infection risk. Intensive Care Med 1991;17:336-9.

13. Slatyer MA, James OF, Moore PG et al. Costs, severity of illness and outcome in intensive care. Anaesth Intensive Care 1986;14:381-9.

14. Mälstam J, Lind L. Therapeutic intervention scoring system (TISS) – a method for measuring workload and calculating costs in the ICU. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1992;36: 758-63.

15. Cullen DJ, Nemeskal AR, Zaslavsky AM. Intermediate TISS: a new therapeutic intervention scoring system for non-ICU patients. Crit Care Med 1994;22:1406-11.

16. Miranda RD, Moreno R, Iapichino G. Nine equivalents of nursing manpower use score (NEMS). Intensive Care Med 1997;23:760-5.