Background
Methods
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Types of studies
Types of participants
Types of interventions
Types of outcome measures
Search methods for identification of studies
Electronic searches
1. eICU.mp. | |
2. tele-ICU.mp. | |
3. tele-intensive care.mp. | |
4. telemonitoring.mp | |
5. OR/1-5 | |
6. Exp critical care/or critical care.mp. | |
7. Exp intensive care/ | |
8. Exp intensive care units/or intensive care unit$.mp. | |
9. Exp Coronary Care Units/or coronary care unit$.mp | |
10. coronary care.mp | |
11. high dependency.mp | |
12. OR/7-12 | |
13. 6 and 13 |
Searching other resources
Data collection and analysis
Study selection
Data extraction and management
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
Data synthesis
Results
Results of the search
Excluded studies
Included studies
Study | Country | Number of ICUs | Type of hospital | ICU model and staffing | Baseline standards | Existing IT infrastructure | Vendor | Funding source | Design (EPOC criteria) | Sample | Duration | Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lilly et al. (2011) | USA | 7 adult ICUs (medical, cardiovascular, and surgical) across 2 campuses 834 beds | Academic centre Suburban/community setting | Closed model of care Intensivist cover 24/7 Night-time cover at the discretion of the bedside ICU house staff Each ICU had a nurse manager and a medical director Bedside care provided by physicians in training, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. 1:1 or 1:2 nurse to patient ratios Respiratory therapist also provided 24/7 cover to each unit | 1 year prior to intervention: standardisation of best practice in all units (prevention of venous thrombosis, cardiovascular complications, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and stress ulcers) and introduction of ICU daily goals | 1 unit: electronic record system 6 units: paper-based patient records | Philips VISICU (Baltimore, MD), APACHE® (Cerner, Kansas City, MO) with additional components provided by UMass Critical Care | University of Massachusetts | Controlled before-after study (prospective unblinded stepped-wedge design) 7 steps; duration of time intervals between steps varied from 1 day to 5 months | 6290 cases: 1529 control subjects, 4761 intervention subjects | Pre-intervention: April 26, 2005–February 7, 2007 Intervention period: August 6, 2006–September 30, 2007 | Primary: hospital and ICU mortality Secondary: hospital and ICU length of stay, best practice adherence, complication rates |
Lilly et al. (2014) | USA | 38 hospitals 56 adult ICUs (medical, surgical, coronary care, neuroscience, cardiothoracic) | Non-teaching, teaching, and teaching affiliated with a university or academic centre Rural, suburban and urban settings within 15 US states, 19 healthcare systems | Not reported | Not reported | Each ICU implemented similar technical components, including audio and video connections, an ICU-focused medical record, and software for detecting evolving physiologic instability (Koninklijke Philips N.V.) | VISICU, now owned by Koninklijke Philips N.V. | University of Massachusetts | Controlled before-after study (non-randomised, unblinded, pre-/post-design) 8-week run-in exclusion period between the start of intervention and recruitment of the first intervention subjects | 118,990 cases: 11,558 control subjects, 107,432 intervention subjects | Pre-intervention: May 16, 2003–end not reported Intervention period: start not reported–December 31, 2008 | Primary: hospital mortality Secondary: ICU mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay |
Checklist | Lilly et al. (2011) | Lilly et al. (2014) |
---|---|---|
Why: Describe the rationale, theory, or goal of the elements essential to the intervention | Rationale for introduction of telemedicine linked with: 1. Earlier recognition and appropriate response to physiological deterioration (safety and timeliness) 2. Implementation of evidence-based care (effectiveness) The programme theory, i.e. how elements of the telemedicine were likely to bring about changes in outcomes not specified | Rationale for introduction of telemedicine linked with: 1. Shorter response to alarms and abnormal laboratory values 2. More rapid initiation of life-saving therapies 3. Higher rates of adherence to best practices The programme theory, i.e. how elements of the ICU telemedicine were likely to bring about changes in outcomes not specified |
What: Describe the materials and procedures used in delivery of the intervention | Telemedicine technical system included: • Audio and video connectivity between bedside and remote team • Access to medical record and laboratory and radiological studies • Decision support software for detecting evolving physiologic instability, abnormal laboratory value alerts, review of response to alerts • Screening tools to help process of weaning in mechanically ventilated patients • Nurse manager rounding tool to track glycaemic control, prevention of venous thrombosis, cardiovascular complications, catheter-related bloodstream infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and stress ulcers • Adherence to best practice guidelines in real time Role of the off-site team • Serial review of individual patients, audits of best practice adherence, monitoring system-generated electronic alerts, and auditing bedside clinician responses to in-room alarms • Communicate with bedside clinicians or directly manage patients by recording clinician orders for tests, treatments, consultations, and management of life-support devices • Intervene when bedside clinicians’ response was delayed and patients were deemed physiologically unstable • Management of out-of-hours cases: review and assignment of case to an appropriate ICU team, patient assessment using real-time video, response to alerts and alarms, review response to the initial plan of care in real time, shared responsibility for altering the care plan if the patient’s condition fails to respond • Monitoring steps taken to remediate non-adherence and deficiencies related to inadequate documentation | Unclear how many sites already had electronic record system in place prior to the start of the programme. Telemedicine technical system provided by Koninklijke Philips N.V. (previously Philips VISICU) which included: • Audio and video connections between bedside and remote team, and electronic medical record • Decision support software for detecting evolving physiologic instability • Additional off-site team to support bedside personnel Availability of bedside documentation to the off-site team, rounding tools, and performance management varied across sites. Role of the off-site team • Serial review of individual patients, audits of best practice adherence, monitoring system-generated electronic alerts, and auditing bedside clinician responses to in-room alarms Admission, review, and intervention responsibilities varied across sites. |
Who: Describe the providers of the intervention | Off-site cover Hospital staff intensivist, an ICU affiliate practitioner, a systems analyst, and one or more data clerks Integration of bedside and off-site staff • Clinical staff from the support centre also worked in the medical centre adult ICUs. | Off-site cover Intensivist available between 12 and 24 h a day, nurse available 24/7 (personal correspondence) Staffing numbers in support centre during weekdays • Intensivists 1–3 • Nurses/nurse practitioners/physician assistants 1–12 Medical director’s time dedicated to the telemedicine programme and levels of technical support provided to the programme varied across sites. ICU bedside staffing model Intensivists’ cover in ICU, medical cover out-of-hours and ICU medical director time dedicated to patient care and administration varied across sites. Integration of bedside and off-site staff Some staff from the support centre also worked at the bedside. |
Where: location where the intervention took place | Off-site support centre | Not reported |
When and how much: Describe the number of times the intervention was delivered and over what period of time including the number of sessions, their schedule, and their duration, intensity, or dose | • Off-site clinicians reviewed care plans for 48 % of after-hours admissions (46 % reviewed by other methods in the control period) • Total no. of alerts for physiological instability per patient per day was 6.80. Of these, 5.05 alerts were managed by bedside clinicians without telemedicine intervention and 1.75 alerts were managed with telemedicine intervention. Most interventions were initiated by the telemedicine team. • Among 24,426 interventions that affected the diagnostic or therapeutic plan, 23,943 were initiated by off-site clinicians and 483 interventions were initiated by bedside clinicians (ratio of 50:1). Among these interventions, 1633 were documented with progress notes that included a rating of the severity of the physiological disturbance; 76 % of these were classified as major (e.g. requiring initiation of a vasoactive medication). | Not reported |
Tailoring or modifications: If the intervention was planned to be personalised, or was adapted during the course of the study, then describe what, why, when, and how. | Not reported | Not reported |
How well: assessment of the intervention adherence or fidelity and description of any strategies used to maintain or improve fidelity | Not reported | Not reported |
Risk of bias in included studies
Effects of intervention
Mortality | |||
Lilly et al. (2011) | Hospital mortality | ICU mortality | |
Pre-intervention (n = 1529) | 13.6 % | 10.7 % | |
Telemedicine (n = 4761) | 11.8 % | 8.6 % | |
Difference | 1.8 % | 2.1 % | |
Adjusted odds ratio | OR, 0.40; CI, 0.31–0.52; p = .05 | OR, 0.37; CI, 0.28–0.49; p = .003 | |
Lilly et al. (2014) | Hospital mortality | ICU mortality | |
Control group (n = 11,558) | 11 % | 8 % | |
Telemedicine (n = 107,432) | 10 % | 6 % | |
Difference | 1 % | 2 % | |
Adjusted hazard ratio | HR, 0.84; CI, 0.78–0.89; p = <.001 | HR, 0.74; CI, 0.68–0.79; p = <.001 | |
Length of stay | |||
Lilly et al. (2011) | Hospital length of stay | ICU length of stay | |
Pre-intervention (n = 1529) | 13.3 days | 6.4 days | |
Telemedicine (n = 4761) | 9.8 days | 4.5 days | |
Difference | 3.5 days | 1.9 days | |
Adjusted hazard ratio | HR, 1.44; CI, 1.33–1.56; p < .001 | HR, 1.26; CI, 1.17–1.36; p < .001 | |
Lilly et al. (2014) | Hospital length of stay | ICU length of stay | |
Control group (n = 11,558) | |||
Telemedicine (n = 107,432) | |||
Adjusted LOS difference | 15 % shorter; CI, 14–17 %; p < .001 | 20 % shorter; CI, 19–22 %; p < .001 | |
Adherence to best practice | |||
Lilly et al. (2011) | DVT prophylaxis | SU prophylaxis | |
Pre-intervention | 85 % (1299/1527) | 83 % (1253/1505) | |
Telemedicine | 99 % (4707/4733) | 96 % (4550/4760) | |
Odds ratio | 15.4; CI, 11.3–21.1; p < .001 | 4.57; CI, 3.91–5.77; p < .001 | |
Lilly et al. (2011) | Cardiovascular protection | VAP prevention | |
Pre-intervention | 80 % (311/391) | 33 % (190/582) | |
Telemedicine | 99 % (2866/2894) | 52 % (770/1492) | |
Odds ratio | 30.7; CI, 19.3–49.2; p < .001 | 2.20; CI, 1.79–2.70; p < .001 | |
Preventable complication rates | |||
Lilly et al. (2011) | VAP | CRBSI | AKI |
Pre-intervention | 13 % (76/584) | 1.0 % (19/1529) | 12 % (174/1452) |
Telemedicine | 1.6 % (32/1949) | 0.6 % (29/4761) | 12 % (540/4565) |
Odds ratio | 0.15; CI, 0.09–0.23; p < .001 | 0.50; CI, 0.27–0.93; p = .005 | 1.00; CI, 0.71–1.69; p = .38 |