Rationale: Provider decisions about patients to be discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU) are often based on subjective intuition, sometimes leading to premature discharge and early readmission. The Stability and Work Load Index for Transfer (SWIFT) score, as a risk stratification tool, has moderate ability to predict patients at risk of ICU readmission. Objectives: To describe findings following the incorporation of the SWIFT score into the discharge workflow of a medical ICU. Methods: The study involved 5,293 consecutive patients discharged alive from the medical ICU of an academic medical center. The SWIFT score and associated percentage risk for readmission were incorporated into daily rounds for purpose of discharge decision-making. We measured readmission rates before and after implementation and observed changes in provider discharge decisions for individual patients after SWIFT discussions. Measurements and Main Results: Baseline (n = 1,906) and implementation (n = 1,938) cohorts differed with respect to APACHE III scores (P = 0.03). In the implementation cohort, 26.2% of subjects had SWIFT scores greater than 15 and thus were predicted to have a higher risk of unplanned readmissions. In this high-risk group, 25% had SWIFT discussed in their discharge planning. There was modification of provider discharge decisions in 108 (30%) of cases in which the SWIFT was discussed. SWIFT score values above a prespecified cutoff of 15 were associated with physician tendency to prolong ICU stay or to discharge to a monitored setting (P < 0.001). There was no difference in 24-hour or 7-day readmission rates between the baseline and implementation cohorts (1.9 vs. 2.4%, P = 0.24; 6.5 vs. 7.4%, P = 0.26, respectively) even after adjustment for severity of illness. Conclusions: Using the SWIFT score as an adjunct to clinical judgment, physicians modified their discharge decisions in one-third of subjects. Introducing such tools into the discharge workflow may present change management challenges that limit the evaluation of their impact on readmission rates and other relevant ICU outcomes.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2014.
All research outputs
#18,375,064
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Annals of the American Thoracic Society
#2,591
of 2,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,234
of 226,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of the American Thoracic Society
#45
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,937 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 226,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
