Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 1;5(9):e2233649.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.33649.

Cost-effectiveness of an Emergency Department-Based Intensive Care Unit

Benjamin S Bassin  1   2 , Nathan L Haas  1   2 , Nana Sefa  1   3 , Richard Medlin  4 , Timothy A Peterson  5 , Kyle Gunnerson  1   2 , Steve Maxwell  5 , James A Cranford  5 , Stephanie Laurinec  1   2 , Christine Olis  6 , Renee Havey  5 , Robert Loof  5 , Patrick Dunn  6 , Debra Burrum  5 , Jennifer Gegenheimer-Holmes  5 , Robert W Neumar  1   2
Affiliations

Cost-effectiveness of an Emergency Department-Based Intensive Care Unit

Benjamin S Bassin et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Value in health care is quality per unit cost (V = Q/C), and an emergency department-based intensive care unit (ED-ICU) model has been associated with improved quality. To assess the value of this care delivery model, it is essential to determine the incremental direct cost of care.

Objective: To determine the association of an ED-ICU with inflation-adjusted change in mean direct cost of care, net revenue, and direct margin per ED patient encounter.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective economic analysis evaluated the cost of care delivery to patients in the ED before and after deployment of the Joyce and Don Massey Family Foundation Emergency Critical Care Center, an ED-ICU, on February 16, 2015, at a large academic medical center in the US with approximately 75 000 adult ED visits per year. The pre-ED-ICU cohort was defined as all documented ED visits by patients 18 years or older with a complete financial record from September 8, 2012, through June 30, 2014 (660 days); the post-ED-ICU cohort, all visits from July 1, 2015, through April 21, 2017 (660 days). Fiscal year 2015 was excluded from analysis to phase in the new care model. Statistical analysis was performed March 1 through December 30, 2021.

Exposures: Implementation of an ED-ICU.

Main outcomes and measures: Inflation-adjusted direct cost of care, net revenue, and direct margin per patient encounter in the ED.

Results: A total of 234 884 ED visits during the study period were analyzed, with 115 052 patients (54.7% women) in the pre-ED-ICU cohort and 119 832 patients (54.5% women) in the post-ED-ICU cohort. The post-ED-ICU cohort was older (mean [SD] age, 49.1 [19.9] vs 47.8 [19.6] years; P < .001), required more intensive respiratory support (2.2% vs 1.1%; P < .001) and more vasopressor use (0.5% vs 0.2%; P < .001), and had a higher overall case mix index (mean [SD], 1.7 [2.0] vs 1.5 [1.7]; P < .001). Implementation of the ED-ICU was associated with similar inflation-adjusted total direct cost per ED encounter (pre-ED-ICU, mean [SD], $4875 [$15 175]; post-ED-ICU, $4877 [$17 400]; P = .98). Inflation-adjusted net revenue per encounter increased by 7.0% (95% CI, 3.4%-10.6%; P < .001), and inflation-adjusted direct margin per encounter increased by 46.6% (95% CI, 32.1%-61.2%; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance: Implementation of an ED-ICU was associated with no significant change in inflation-adjusted total direct cost per ED encounter. Holding delivery costs constant while improving quality demonstrates improved value via the ED-ICU model of care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr. Bassin reported receiving salary support from the Joyce and Don Massey Family Foundation during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Flowchart of Study Cohort
AMA indicates against medical advice; EC3, Emergency Critical Care Center; and ED, emergency department.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Completing the Value Equation for the Emergency Department (ED)–Based Intensive Care Unit (ICU)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Herring AA, Ginde AA, Fahimi J, et al. . Increasing critical care admissions from US emergency departments, 2001-2009. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(5):1197-1204. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827c086f - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mullins PM, Goyal M, Pines JM. National growth in intensive care unit admissions from emergency departments in the United States from 2002 to 2009. Acad Emerg Med. 2013;20(5):479-486. doi:10.1111/acem.12134 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Halpern NA, Pastores SM, Oropello JM, Kvetan V. Critical care medicine in the United States: addressing the intensivist shortage and image of the specialty. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(12):2754-2761. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e318298a6fb - DOI - PubMed
    1. Halpern SD. ICU capacity strain and the quality and allocation of critical care. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2011;17(6):648-657. doi:10.1097/MCC.0b013e32834c7a53 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chalfin DB, Trzeciak S, Likourezos A, Baumann BM, Dellinger RP; DELAY-ED study group . Impact of delayed transfer of critically ill patients from the emergency department to the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(6):1477-1483. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000266585.74905.5A - DOI - PubMed

Publication types