PubMed1998
As noted previously, prior to permanently instituting an outcomes approach, we compared the effects of such a model to a nonoutcomes-managed approach. The positive trend noted during the study interval has been sustained 2 years later, and the variables of cost, LOS, and ventilator duration (median = 9 days for DRG 475, 483 combined) for these patients continue to be favorably affected (see Figure 2). In addition, the outcomes-management model has been well accepted by all members of the health care team. The outcomes manager is a respected and valued member of the team and is central to the ongoing success of the approach. Although the clinical pathway is an essential tool for focusing and delineating multidisciplinary best-practice, the pathway (and processes of care contained within) must be continually evaluated and changed as needed. The pathway cannot be static if care is to be progressive. Essential to the process is a method of collecting and processing data in a timely way. Further, it is important that data collection, while important, not be the focus of the role of outcomes manager. Instead, the focus is the delivery of timely and effective care. Our current outcomes model applies to management of patients beyond the boundaries of the MICU or pulmonary suite. In other words, once weaned and transferred to a regular floor the outcomes manager no longer manages the patients (although she does track selected outcomes). Management of patients throughout hospitalization is a future goal, but we are convinced that this cannot be accomplished by a single outcomes manager. Although we are aware that other outcomes models do follow patients throughout the continuum of hospitalization and beyond, our highly clinically interactive model precludes that possibility. We are currently considering other similar unit-based positions to provide the desired continuity following discharge from the MICU or pulmonary suite. Despite our enthusiasm for the outcomes-management model, we recognize that other models may also result in comparable, favorable outcomes. It is important that those who adopt similar models of care delivery for managing patients requiring prolonged ventilation be scientific in their approach. Long-term studies of the efficacy of these models are essential if we are to truly provide quality care for our patients in the future. Unfortunately, as noted earlier, bias will be hard to overcome. Hospitals vested in rapidly establishing a stable financial bottom-line are likely to embrace quick applications. Projects with a true experimental design to evaluate efficacy, such as this one, will be rare in these organizations. Finally, it is critical that variables of interest be inclusive of specific quality indicators such as ventilator duration and complications rather than global institutional markers such as LOS. Standardization of variables of interest is imperative if outcomes are to be compared. For example, patients requiring long-term mechanical ventilation are identified by the AACN's Third National Study Group on weaning as those who require mechanical ventilation for more than 3 days. If we are to compare other variables of interest such as total ventilator duration, such as definition is essential or we will be comparing apples and oranges in the future. Provision of quality, cost-effective care for patients requiring prolonged ventilation is a true clinical challenge. Outcomes management is a multidisciplinary method of care delivery that is systematic and comprehensive in approach. Although little science exists related to the application of the model for patients requiring prolonged ventilation, preliminary reports are promising and warrant future applications and evaluation of the same.