Introduction

In 1966 Dr B Galbally, a hospital resuscitation officer at St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, published the first article on the planning and organisation of an intensive care unit (ICU) in Australia.¹ He identified that critically ill patients who have a reasonable chance of recovery require life-saving treatments and constant nursing and medical care, but this intensity of service delivery ‘does not necessarily continue until the patient dies, and it should not continue after the patient is considered no longer recoverable’.¹

The need for prudent and rational allocation of limited financial and human resources was as important for Australia’s first ICU (St Vincent’s, Melbourne, 1961) as it is for the 200 or more now scattered across Australia and New Zealand. This chapter explores the influences on the development of critical care and the way this resource is currently viewed and used; describes various organisational, staffing and training arrangements that need to be in place; considers the planning, design and equipment needs of a critical care unit; covers other aspects of resource management including the budget; and finishes with a description of how critical care staff may respond to a pandemic. First, however, important ethical decisions in managing the resources of a critical care unit, which are just as important as the ethical resources that govern the care decisions for an individual patient (see Chapter 6), are discussed below.

Ethical Allocation and Utilisation of Resources

In management, as in clinical practice, careful consideration of the pros and cons of various decisions must be made on a daily basis. The interests of the individual patient, extended family, treating team, bureaucracy and the broader community are rarely congruent, nor are they usually consistent. Decisions surrounding the provision of critical care services are often governed by a compromise between conflicting interests and ethical theories. Two main perspectives on ethical decision making, deontological and utilitarian, are explored briefly.

The deontological principle suggests that a person has a fundamental duty to act in a certain way – for example, to provide full, active treatment to all persons. The rule of rescue, or the innate desire to do something – anything – to help those in dire need, may be a corollary to the deontological principle. These two concepts, the duty to act and the rule of rescue, tend to sit well with many trained and skilled clinicians and the Hippocratic Oath. In critical care there are some families and some clinicians who, for personal and/or religious reasons, take a strong stand and demand treatments and actions based on a deontological view (i.e. the fundamental belief that a certain action is the only one that should be considered in a given situation).

At the other extreme is the utilitarian view, which suggests an action is right only if it achieves the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This concept tends to sit well with pragmatic managers and policy makers.² An example of a utilitarian view might be to ration funding allocated to heart transplantation and to utilise any saved money for prevention and awareness campaigns. A heart disease prevention campaign lends a greater benefit to a greater number in the population than does one transplant procedure.

The appropriate provision and allocation of critical care services and resources tend to sit somewhere between these two extreme positions. This dilemma is true of all health services, but critical care, because of its high-technology, high-cost, low-volume outputs, is under particular scrutiny to justify its resource usage within a healthcare system. Therefore, not only do critical care managers need to be prudent, responsible and efficient guardians of this precious resource – they need to be seen as such if they are to retain the confidence of, and legitimacy with, the broader community values of the day.

Historical Influences

An often-held view is that managers in government health services have no incentive to spend or expand services.³ However, the opposite is probably true. Developing larger and more sophisticated services such as ICUs can attract media and public attention. The 1960s and early 1970s saw the development of the first critical care units in Australia and New Zealand. If a hospital was to be relevant, it had to have one. In fact, what distinguished a tertiary referral teaching hospital from other hospitals was, at its fundamental conclusion, the existence of a critical care unit.⁴ Over time, practical reasons for establishing critical care units have led to their spread to most acute hospitals with more than 100 beds. Reasons for the proliferation of critical care services include, but are not limited to:

Funding for critical care services has evolved over time to be somewhat separate from mainstream patient funding, owing to the unique requirements of critical care units. Critical care is unique because patients are at the severe end of the disease spectrum. For instance, the funding provided for a patient admitted for chronic obstructive airway disease in an ICU on a ventilator is very different from that provided for a patient with the same diagnosis, but treated only in a medical ward. Each jurisdictional health department tends to create its own unique approach to funding ICU services in its jurisdiction.⁵ For instance, Queensland tends to fund ICU patients who are specifically identified and defined in the Clinical Services Capability Framework for Intensive Care⁶ with a prescribed price per diem, depending on the level of intensive care given to the patient or a price per weighted activity unit, as defined in the business rules and updated on an annual basis.⁷ In Victoria, the diagnosis-related group (DRG) payment for individual patient types admitted to the hospital also pays for ICU episodes, with some co-payment elements added for mechanical ventilation.⁸ In New South Wales a per diem rate is established for ICU patients, while high-dependency patients in ICU are funded through the hospital DRG payment; in South Australia a flat per diem rate exists.^9,10 Most other states have a global ICU budget payment system based on funded beds or expected occupied bed days in the ICU. However, within states and specific health services and hospitals the actual allocation of funding to the ICU may vary, depending on the nature of the specific ICU and demands and priorities of the health service.¹¹

The RAND study¹² examined funding methods in many countries and concluded that there was no obvious example of ‘best practice’ or a dominant approach used by a majority of systems. Each approach had advantages and disadvantages, particularly in relation to the financial risk involved in providing intensive care. While the risk of underfunding intensive care may be highest in systems that apply DRGs to the entire episode of hospital care, including intensive care, concerns about potential underfunding were voiced in all systems reviewed. Arrangements for additional funding in the form of co-payments or surcharges may reduce the risk of underfunding. However, these approaches also face the difficulty of determining the appropriate level.¹²

At the hospital level, most critical care units have capped and finite budgets that are linked to ‘open beds’ – that is, beds that are equipped, staffed and ready to be occupied by a patient, regardless of whether they are actually occupied.¹³ This is one crude yet common way that hospitals can control costs emanating from the critical care unit. The other method is to limit the number of trained and experienced nurses available to the specialty; consequently, a shortage of qualified critical care nurses results in a shortage of critical care beds, resulting in a rationing of the service available. The capping of beds and qualified critical care nurse positions can be convenient mechanisms to limit access and utilisation of this expensive service – critical care.

Funding based on achieving positive patient outcomes would be ideal, as it would ensure that critical care units were using their resources only for those patients who were most likely to achieve positive outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality, but such an ideal has not developed sufficiently to date. Funding based on health outcomes only does, however, raise the risk of encouraging clinicians to ‘cherry-pick’ only the most ‘profitable’ or ‘successful’ patient groups at the expense of others. In private (for-profit) hospitals or countries with very poor health systems, ‘cherry-picking’ only those patients for whom a successful outcome is guaranteed is likely to be more common, whereas in the public hospitals of most Western countries an educated guess/risk is often applied to the decision as to whether a patient should enter the critical care unit or not.

It is vital to note the very important role played by rural and isolated health services and, in particular, critical care units and outreach services in these regions. Many of the contemporary activity-based funding formulas are difficult to apply to these settings. There are diseconomies of scale in such settings as a result of small bed numbers, limited but highly skilled nurses and doctors, and unpredictable peaks and troughs in demand, which make workforce planning and the management of call-in/overtime and fatigue problems difficult for small teams to manage. The professional isolation and limited access to education, training and peer support can also create morale problems for some members of the team. Furthermore, the diseconomies and isolation require empathetic funding processes to recognise the difficulties unique to regional and isolated critical care services. If such units are to remain viable and capable of delivering levels of safe and effective care equivalent to those expected in larger metropolitan hospitals, then additional funding and support is required to compensate for the cost and tyranny of distance.

Economic Considerations and Principles

One early comprehensive study of costs found that 8% of patients admitted to the ICU consumed 50% of resources but had a mortality rate of 70%, while 41% of patients received no acute interventions and consumed only 10% of resources.¹⁴ More recent Australian studies show that, although critical care service is increasingly being provided to patients with a higher severity of acute and chronic illnesses, long-term survival outcome has improved with time, suggesting that critical care service may still be cost-effective despite the changes in case-mix.^15,16

An Australian study showed that in 2002, ICU patients cost around $2670 per day or $9852 per ICU admission, with more than two-thirds going to staff costs, one-fifth to clinical consumables and the rest to clinical support and capital expenditure.¹⁷ Nevertheless, some authors provide scenarios as examples of poor economic decision making in critical care and argue for less extreme variances in the types of patient ICUs choose to treat in order to reduce the burden of the health dollar.^18,19 Others have suggested that if all healthcare provided were appropriate, rationing would not be required.³ Defining what is ‘appropriate’ can be subjective, although not always. The RAND^12,20 group suggests that there are at least three approaches that can be used to assess appropriateness of care (Table 2.1). These include the benefit–risk, benefit–cost and implicit approaches.

TABLE 2.1 Approaches to assessing treatment options¹²

The first two approaches are considered to be explicit approaches, while the third tends to be subjective. However, all approaches have a subjective element. While the implicit approach is considered to be subjective in nature, the medical practitioner must contemplate ‘benefit–risk’ and ‘benefit–cost’ considerations but should also involve the patient/family in the contemplation and ultimate decision. What is best for the patient is not just the opinion of the treating doctor and needs to be considered in much broader terms, such as the patient’s previous expressed wishes and the family’s opinion as de-facto patient representatives. The quality of the decision and the quality of the expected outcome require many competing considerations.

The ‘quality’ agenda in healthcare has argued for ‘best practice’ and ‘best outcomes’ in the provision of health services, although it may be more pragmatic to consider ‘value’ when discussing what is and what is not an appropriate decision in critical care. The following equation expresses the concept ‘value’ simply:

The quality of the outcome is a function of the benefit to be achieved and the sustainability of the benefit. The benefit of critical care is associated with such factors as survival, longevity and improved quality of life (e.g. greater functioning capacity and less pain and anxiety). The benefit is enhanced by sustainability: the longer the benefit is maintained, the better it is.²¹

Cost is separated into two components, monetary (price) and non-monetary (suffering). Non-monetary costs include such considerations as morbidity, mortality, pain and anxiety in the individual, or broader societal costs and suffering (e.g. opportunity costs to others who might have used the resources but for the current occupants, and what other health services might have been provided but for the cost of this service).²¹

Ethico-economic analyses of services like critical care and expensive treatments like organ transplantation are the new consideration of this century and are as important to good governance as are discussions of medico-legal considerations. Sound ethical principles to inform and guide human and material resource management and budgets ought to prevail in the management of critical care resources.²

Budget

This section provides information on types of budget, the budgeting process, and how to analyse costs and expenditure to ensure that resources are utilised appropriately. As noted by one author, ‘Nothing is so terrifying for clinicians accustomed to daily issues of life and death as to be given responsibility for the financial affairs of their hospital division!’.³ Yet, in essence, developing and managing a budget for a critical care unit follows many of the same principles as managing a family budget. Consideration of value for money, prioritising needs and wants, and living within a relatively fixed income is common to all. This section in no way undermines the skill and precision provided by the accounting profession, nor will it enable clinicians to usurp the role of hospital business managers. Rather, the aim is to provide the requisite knowledge to empower clinicians to manage the key components of budget development and budget setting, and to know what questions to ask when confronted by this most daunting responsibility of managing a unit’s or service’s budget.

Critical Care Environment

A critical care unit is a distinct unit within a hospital that has easy access to the emergency department, operating theatre and medical imaging. It provides care to patients with a life-threatening illness or injury and concentrates the clinical expertise and technological and therapeutic resources required.²⁶ The College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) defines three levels of intensive care to support the role delineation of a particular hospital, dependent upon staffing expertise, facilities and support services.²⁷ Critical care facilities vary in nature and extent between hospitals and are dependent on the operational policies of each individual facility. In smaller facilities, the broad spectrum of critical care may be provided in combined units (intensive care, high-dependency, coronary care) to improve flexibility and aid the efficient use of available resources.²⁶

Equipment

Since the advent of critical care units, healthcare delivery has become increasingly dependent on medical technology to deliver that care. Equipment can be categorised into several funding groups: capital expenditure (generally in excess of $10,000), equipment expenditure (all equipment less than $10,000), and the disposable products and devices required to support the use of equipment. This section examines how to evaluate, procure and maintain that equipment.

Staff

Staffing critical care units is an important human resource consideration. The focus of this section is on nursing staff, although the important role that medical staff and other ancillary health personnel provide is acknowledged. Nurses’ salaries consume a considerable portion of any unit budget and, owing to the constant presence of nurses at the bedside, appropriate staffing plays a significant role in the quality of care delivered. Nurse staffing levels influence patient outcomes both directly, through the initiation of appropriate nursing care strategies, and indirectly, by mediating and implementing the care strategies of other members of the multidisciplinary healthcare team. Therefore, ensuring an appropriate skill mix is an important aspect of unit management. This section considers how appropriate staffing levels are determined and the factors, such as nurse–patient ratios and skill mix, that influence them.