ABSTRACT
(1) Background: Patients who deserve intensive care unit (ICU) admission may be denied due to a lack of resources, complicating ICU triage decisions for intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. Among the resources that may be unavailable are trained personnel and monitored beds. In South Africa, the distribution of healthcare resources is reflected in the availability of ICU beds, with more ICU beds available in more affluent areas. Data on ICU refusal rates, reasons for refusal, patient characteristics, and outcomes are scarce in resource-constrained rural settings. Hence, this study sheds light on the ICU refusal rates, reasons for refusal, characteristics, and outcomes of refused patients at NMAH. (2) Methods: This was a three-month retrospective cross-sectional record review of refused and admitted patients from January to March 2022. COVID-19 patients and those younger than 13 years old were excluded. Refusal rates, reasons for refusal, characteristics, and outcomes of refused patients were analysed quantitatively using SPSS VS 20 software. Reasons for refusal were categorised as "too well", "too sick", and "suitable for admission but no resources". (3) Results: A total of 135 patients were discussed for ICU admission at NMAH during the study period; 73 (54.07%) were refused admission, and 62 (45.92%) were admitted. Being considered too sick to benefit from ICU was the most common reason for refusal (53.23%). Too well and no resources contributed 27.42% and 19.35%, respectively. Patients with poor functional status, comorbidities, medical diagnoses, and those referred from the ward or accident and emergency unit rather than the operating room were more likely to be refused ICU admission. Refused patients had a seven-day mortality rate of 47%. (4) Conclusions and recommendations: The study found an unmet need for critical care services at our institution, as well as a need for tools to help clinicians make objective triage decisions for critically ill patients. Therefore, the study suggests a need to improve the quality of services provided outside of the ICU, particularly for patients who were refused ICU admission, to improve their outcomes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of the implementation of a surgical safety checklist (SSC) in observational studies have shown a significant decrease in mortality and surgical complications. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of the SSC using data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015017546). A comprehensive search of six databases was conducted using the OvidSP search engine. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-four citations revealed three eligible trials conducted in tertiary hospitals and a community hospital, with a total of 6 060 patients. All trials had allocation concealment bias and a lack of blinding of participants and personnel. A single trial that contributed 5 295 of the 6 060 patients to the meta-analysis had no detection, attrition or reporting biases. The SSC was associated with significantly decreased mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 - 0.85; p=0.0004; I2=0%) and surgical complications (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.57 - 0.71; p<0.00001; I2=0%). The efficacy of the SSC on specific surgical complications was as follows: respiratory complications RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.21 - 1.70; p=0.33, cardiac complications RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.28 - 1.95; p=0.54, infectious complications RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.29 - 1.27; p=0.18, and perioperative bleeding RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 - 0.56; p<0.00001. CONCLUSIONS: There is sufficient RCT evidence to suggest that SSCs decrease hospital mortality and surgical outcomes in tertiary and community hospitals. However, randomised evidence of the efficacy of the SSC at rural hospital level is absent.
