The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Performance of Intensive Care Units: Does Good Management Make a Difference?
Abstract
A significant portion of health care resources are spent in intensive care units with, historically, up to two-fold variation in risk-adjusted mortality. Technological, demographic, and social forces are likely to lead to an increased volume of intensive care in the future. Thus, it is important to identify ways of more efficiently managing intensive care units and reducing the variation in patient outcomes. Based on data collected from 17,440 patients across 42 ICUs, the present study examines the factors associated with risk-adjusted mortality, risk-adjusted average length of stay, nurse turnover, evaluated technical quality of care, and evaluated ability to meet family member needs. Using the Apache III methodology for risk-adjustment, findings reveal that: 1) technological availability is significantly associated with lower risk-adjusted mortality (beta = -.42); 2) diagnostic diversity is significantly associated with greater risk-adjusted mortality (beta = .46); and 3) caregiver interaction comprising the culture, leadership, coordination, communication, and conflict management abilities of the unit is significantly associated with lower risk-adjusted length of stay (beta = .34), lower nurse turnover (beta = -.36), higher evaluated technical quality of care (beta = .81), and greater evaluated ability to meet family member needs (beta = .74). Furthermore, units with greater technological availability are significantly more likely to be associated with hospitals that are more profitable, involved in teaching activities, and have unit leaders actively participating in hospital-wide quality improvement activities. The findings hold a number of important managerial and policy implications regarding technological adoption, specialization, and the quality of interaction among ICU team members. They suggest intervention "leverage points" for care givers, managers, and external policy makers in efforts to continuously improve the outcomes of intensive care.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Serial Evaluation of the SOFA Score to Predict Outcome in Critically Ill Patients
Ferreira, F. L. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.286.14.1754 · Cited by 2,862
Burnout and Medical Errors Among American Surgeons
Shanafelt, T. D., Balch, C. M., Bechamps, G., Russell, T., Dyrbye, L., Satele, D., Collicott, P., Novotny, P. J., Sloan, J., & Freischlag, J. (2010) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3181bfdab3 · Cited by 2,099
Edmondson, A. C. (2003) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00386 · Cited by 1,635
Ferlie, E. B., & Shortell, S. M. (2001) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00206 · Cited by 1,335
Self-citationAdvancing Health Disparities Research Within the Health Care System: A Conceptual Framework
Kilbourne, A. M., Switzer, G., Hyman, K., Crowley-Matoka, M., & Fine, M. J. (2006) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2005.077628 · Cited by 761
Metadata
- Authors
- Shortell, S. M., Zimmerman, J. E., Rousseau, D. M., Gillies, R. R., Wagner, D. P., Draper, E. A., Kanus, W. A., & Duffy, J.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 1994-05
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 508-525
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2075722930
- Cited by
- 733
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 37.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Performance of Intensive Care Units: Does Good Management Make a Difference? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00005650-199405000-00009
- The paper
- Shortell, S. M., Zimmerman, J. E., Rousseau, D. M., Gillies, R. R., Wagner, D. P., Draper, E. A., Kanus, W. A., & Duffy, J. (1994). The Performance of Intensive Care Units: Does Good Management Make a Difference? Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199405000-00009
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.