The current state of intensive care unit discharge practices - Results of an international survey study.

Background: Increasing pressure on limited intensive care capacities often requires a subjective assessment of a patient's discharge readiness in the absence of established Admission, Discharge, and Transfer (ADT) guidelines. To avoid suboptimal care transitions, it is important to define clear guidelines for the admission and discharge of intensive care patients and to optimize transfer processes between the intensive care unit (ICU) and lower care levels. To achieve these goals, structured insights into usual ICU discharge and transfer practices are essential. This study aimed to generate these insights by focusing on involved stakeholders, established processes, discharge criteria and tools, relevant performance metrics, and current barriers to a timely and safe discharge. Method: In 2022, a structured, web-based, anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted, aimed at practicing ICU physicians, nurses, and bed coordinators. The survey consisted of 29 questions (open, closed, multiple choice, and scales) that were divided into thematic blocks. The study was supported by several national and international societies for intensive care medicine and nursing. Results: A total of 219 participants from 40 countries (105 from Germany) participated in the survey. An overload of acute care resources with ~90% capacity utilization in the ICU and the general ward (GW) leads to not only premature but also delayed patient transfers due to a lack of available ward and intermediate care (IMC) beds. After multidisciplinary rounds within the intensive care team, the ICU clinician on duty usually makes the final transfer decision, while one-third of the panel coordinates discharge decisions across departmental boundaries. By the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, half of the hospitals had implemented ADT policies. Among these hospitals, nearly one-third of the hospitals had specific transfer criteria established, consisting primarily of vital signs and laboratory data, patient status and autonomy, and organization-specific criteria. Liaison nurses were less common but were ranked right after the required IMC capacities to bridge the care gap between the ICU and normal wards. In this study, 80% of the participants suggested that transfer planning would be easier if there was good transparency regarding the capacity utilization of lower care levels, a standardized transfer process, and improved interdisciplinary communication. Conclusion: To improve care transitions, transfer processes should be managed proactively across departments, and efforts should be made to identify and address care gaps.

Delphi study to derive expert consensus on a set of criteria to evaluate discharge readiness for adult ICU patients to be discharged to a general ward-European perspective.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Discharge decisions in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients are frequently taken under pressure to free up ICU beds. In the absence of established guidelines, the evaluation of discharge readiness commonly underlies subjective judgements. The challenge is to come to the right decision at the right time for the right patient. A premature care transition puts patients at risk of readmission to the ICU. Delayed discharge is a waste of resources and may result in over-treatment and suboptimal patient flow. More objective decision support is required to assess the individual patient's discharge readiness but also the current care capabilities of the receiving unit. METHODS: In a modified online Delphi process, an international panel of 27 intensive care experts reached consensus on a set of 28 intensive care discharge criteria. An initial evidence-based proposal was developed further through the panelists' edits, adding, comments and voting over a course of 5 rounds. Consensus was defined as achieved when ≥ 90% of the experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale or in a multiple-choice survey. Round 1 to 3 focused on inclusion and exclusion of the criteria based on the consensus threshold, where round 3 was a reiteration to establish stability. Round 4 and 5 focused on the exact phrasing, values, decision makers and evaluation time frames per criterion. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on a standard set of 28 ICU discharge criteria for adult ICU patients, that reflect the patient's organ systems ((respiratory (7), cardiovascular (9), central nervous (1), and urogenital system (2)), pain (1), fluid loss and drainages (1), medication and nutrition (1), patient diagnosis, prognosis and preferences (2) and institution-specific criteria (4). All criteria have been specified in a binary decision metric (fit for ICU discharge vs. needs further intensive therapy/monitoring), with consented value calculation methods where applicable and a criterion importance rank with "mandatory to be met" flags and applicable exceptions. CONCLUSION: For a timely identification of stable intensive care patients and safe and efficient care transitions, a standardized discharge readiness evaluation should be based on patient factors as well as organizational boundary conditions and involve multiple stakeholders.

One year with the COVID-19 pandemic - Lessons learnt? Intersectoral collaboration measures established during the crisis could benefit capacity and patient flow management in daily clinical practice.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way hospitals work. Strategies that were detached from the boundaries of departments and responsibilities in the COVID-19 pandemic have proven themselves under extreme conditions and show a beneficial influence on patient flow and resource management as well as on the communication culture. The continuation of closer interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral co-operation in a "new clinical routine" could have a positive impact on personnel concepts, communication strategies, and the management of acute care capacities and patient pathways. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The aim of the paper is to critically discuss the knowledge gained in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic from the various approaches in patient flow and capacity management as well as interdisciplinary co-operation. More recent research has evaluated patient pathway management, personnel planning and communication measures with regard to their effect and practicability for continuation in everyday clinical practice. FINDINGS: Patient flows and acute care capacities can be more efficiently managed by continuing a culture change towards closer interdisciplinary and intersectoral co-operation and technologies that support this with telemedicine functionalities and regional healthcare data interoperability. Together with a bi-directional, more frequent and open communication and feedback culture, it could form a "new clinical routine". ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper discusses a holistic approach on the way away from silo thinking towards cross-departmental collaboration.