2011
DOI: 10.1186/cc9999
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Triage of high-risk surgical patients for intensive care

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
31
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…26 the Charlson Comorbidity index is more detailed than the asa classification, 27 but has been considered more useful for research than actual patient risk stratification. 28 further, neither the asa nor Charlson Comorbidity index incorporate variables specific to the surgical procedure. 28 in addition, these scores do not accurately translate the preoperative risk factors into a predictor for adverse postoperative outcomes, such as delayed discharge.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…26 the Charlson Comorbidity index is more detailed than the asa classification, 27 but has been considered more useful for research than actual patient risk stratification. 28 further, neither the asa nor Charlson Comorbidity index incorporate variables specific to the surgical procedure. 28 in addition, these scores do not accurately translate the preoperative risk factors into a predictor for adverse postoperative outcomes, such as delayed discharge.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…28 further, neither the asa nor Charlson Comorbidity index incorporate variables specific to the surgical procedure. 28 in addition, these scores do not accurately translate the preoperative risk factors into a predictor for adverse postoperative outcomes, such as delayed discharge. frailty is an emerging measure in patient risk stratification 29 Previously developed tools to assess frailty had not gained widespread acceptance among providers.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Although volume-outcome relationships are fairly ubiquitous in the medical literature [9], this relationship has not been demonstrated for all cancer surgery. Volume is only but one surrogate measure of quality and more specifically under the Donabedian category of Bstructures of care.^Some of the volume-outcome relationships in high-risk surgery can be attributed to the ability of high-volume centers to quickly identify and treat inpatient complications as well as judicious post-operative intensive care unit admission [10][11][12][13][14].…”
Section: Volume-outcome Associations and Potential Lives Savedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there are many scoring systems that can be used to assess operative risk, 32 there is little evidence that these are routinely used to enhance decision making about postoperative location for the emergency patient, 12 and triage may be required when bed availability is limited. 33 High-risk patients undergoing EGS may not always get optimal postoperative care and may be less likely to be admitted to critical care than patients undergoing major elective procedures with much lower mortality. [34][35][36] Most patients undergoing emergency laparotomy are likely to need critical care.…”
Section: Postoperative Carementioning
confidence: 99%