A quality improvement study on how a simulation model can help decision making on organization of ICU wards.

BACKGROUND: Intensive Care Unit (ICU) capacity management is essential to provide high-quality healthcare for critically ill patients. Yet, consensus on the most favorable ICU design is lacking, especially whether ICUs should deliver dedicated or non-dedicated care. The decision for dedicated or non-dedicated ICU design considers a trade-off in the degree of specialization for individual patient care and efficient use of resources for society. We aim to share insights of a model simulating capacity effects for different ICU designs. Upon request, this simulation model is available for other ICUs. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was developed and used, to study the hypothetical performance of a large University Hospital ICU on occupancy, rejection, and rescheduling rates for a dedicated and non-dedicated ICU design in four different scenarios. These scenarios either simulate the base-case situation of the local ICU, varying bed capacity levels, potential effects of reduced length of stay for a dedicated design and unexpected increased inflow of unplanned patients. RESULTS: The simulation model provided insights to foresee effects of capacity choices that should be made. The non-dedicated ICU design outperformed the dedicated ICU design in terms of efficient use of scarce resources. CONCLUSIONS: The choice to use dedicated ICUs does not only affect the clinical outcome, but also rejection- rescheduling and occupancy rates. Our analysis of a large university hospital demonstrates how such a model can support decision making on ICU design, in conjunction with other operation characteristics such as staffing and quality management.

Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review.

The aim of this scoping review is to summarize approaches and outcomes of clinical validation studies of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to support (part of) a medication review. A literature search was conducted in Embase and Medline. In total, 30 articles validating a CDSS were ultimately included. Most of the studies focused on detection of adverse drug events, potentially inappropriate medications and drug-related problems. We categorized the included articles in three groups: studies subjectively reviewing the clinical relevance of CDSS's output (21/30 studies) resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) for clinical relevance of 4-80%; studies determining the relationship between alerts and actual events (10/30 studies) resulting in a PPV for actual events of 5-80%; and studies comparing output of CDSSs to chart/medication reviews in the whole study population (10/30 studies) resulting in a sensitivity of 28-85% and specificity of 42-75%. We found heterogeneity in the methods used and in the outcome measures. The validation studies did not report the use of a published CDSS validation strategy. To improve the effectiveness and uptake of CDSSs supporting a medication review, future research would benefit from a more systematic and comprehensive validation strategy.