Cited by 49Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealthcare Systems and TechnologyIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders

ICU Telemedicine Comanagement Methods and Length of Stay

Hawkins, Helen A., Lilly, Craig M., Kaster, David A., Groves, Robert H., Khurana, Hargobind·2016·CHEST

Abstract

Background Studies have identified processes that are associated with more favorable length of stay (LOS) outcomes when an ICU telemedicine program is implemented. Despite these studies, the relation of the acceptance of ICU telemedicine management services by individual ICUs to LOS outcomes is unknown.Methods This is a single ICU telemedicine center study that compares LOS outcomes among three groups of intensivist-staffed mixed medical-surgical ICUs that used alternative comanagement strategies. The proportion of provider orders recorded by an ICU telemedicine provider to all recorded orders was compared among ICUs that used a monitor and notify comanagement approach, a direct intervention with timely notification process, and ICUs that used a mix of these two approaches. The primary outcome was acuity-adjusted hospital LOS.Results ICUs that used the direct intervention with timely notification strategy had a significantly larger proportion of provider orders recorded by ICU telemedicine physicians than the mixed methods of comanagement group, which had a larger proportion than ICUs that used the monitor and notify method (P < .001). Acuity-adjusted hospital LOS was significantly lower for the direct intervention with timely notification comanagement strategy (0.68; 0.65-0.70) compared with the mixed methods group (0.70 [0.69-0.72]; P = .01), which was significantly lower than the monitor and notify group (0.83 [0.80-0.86]; P < .001).Conclusions Direct intervention with timely notification strategies of ICU telemedicine comanagement were associated with shorter LOS outcomes than monitor and notify comanagement strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.030

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hawkins, H. A., Lilly, C. M., Kaster, D. A., Groves, R. H., & Khurana, H.
Affiliations
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • Banner Health (US)
Corresponding author
Khurana, Hargobind
Venue
CHEST
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-08
Volume
150
Issue
2
Pages
314-319
ISSN
0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2313498007
Cited by
49
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
9.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • CHEST Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eli Lilly and Company
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Keywords
length of hospital stay, intensivist staffing, intensive care
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cooperative Behavior, Critical Care, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Hospital Mortality, Telemedicine, APACHE, Early Medical Intervention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review