• Hannah Wunsch, David A Harrison, Andrew Jones, and Kathryn Rowan.
• 1 Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
• Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2015 Jan 15; 191 (2): 186-93.

RationaleLittle is known about the utility of provision of high-dependency care (HDC) that is in a geographically separate location from a primary intensive care unit (ICU).ObjectivesTo determine whether the availability of HDC in a geographically separate unit affects patient flow or mortality for critically ill patients.MethodsAdmissions to ICUs in the United Kingdom, from 2009 to 2011, who received Level 3 intensive care in the first 24 hours after admission and subsequently Level 2 HDC. We compared differences in patient flow and outcomes for patients treated in hospitals providing some HDC in a geographically separate unit (dual HDC) with patients treated in hospitals providing all HDC in the same unit as intensive care (integrated HDC) using multilevel mixed effects models.Measurements And Main ResultsIn 192 adult general ICUs, 21.4% provided dual HDC. Acute hospital mortality was no different for patients cared for in ICUs with dual HDC versus those with integrated HDC (adjusted odds ratio, 0.94 [0.86-1.03]; P = 0.16). Dual HDC was associated with a decreased likelihood of a delayed discharge from the primary unit. However, total duration of critical care and the likelihood of discharge from the primary unit at night were increased with dual HDC.ConclusionsAvailability of HDC in a geographically separate unit does not impact acute hospital mortality. The potential benefit of decreasing delays in discharge should be weighed against the increased total duration of critical care and greater likelihood of a transfer out of the primary unit at night.

39 keywords...

hide…