Twenty-four-hour coverage is costly, has not demonstrated benefit and diminishes the quality of intensivists’ training
At first glance, proposals for having an in-house consultant intensivist providing 24-hour care have some appeal. It has been suggested that because daily intensivist input improves outcomes in the critically ill, moving from an after-hours consultation service to a 24-hour presence onsite would improve the quality of health care.1 However, this belief is purely speculative and is not supported by data. It is important to recognise that in other areas of medicine, treatments require a certain “dose”, and when given in excess of this dose there is no further improvement. For example, excessive administration of what some may consider relatively benign therapies, such as oxygen, intravenous fluid and enteral nutrition, has no benefit and indeed can be harmful beyond a certain dose. The optimal “dose” of an intensivist remains uncertain.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Cartin-Ceba R, Bajwa EK. 24-hour on-site intensivist in the intensive care unit: yes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 181: 1279-1280.
- 2. Bhonagiri D, Pilcher DV, Bailey MJ. Increased mortality associated with after-hours and weekend admission to the intensive care unit: a retrospective analysis. Med J Aust 2011; 194: 287-292. <MJA full text>
- 3. Moran JL, Bristow P, Solomon PJ, et al. Mortality and length-of-stay outcomes, 1993-2003, in the binational Australian and New Zealand intensive care adult patient database. Crit Care Med 2008; 36: 46-61.
- 4. Wallace DJ, Angus DC, Barnato AE, et al. Nighttime intensivist staffing and mortality among critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 2093-2101.
- 5. Elshaug AG, Moss JR, Littlejohns P, et al. Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust 2009; 190: 269-273. <MJA full text>
No relevant disclosures.