Abstract
In an environment of resource rationing there are numerous patients who are unable to be admitted to a high-dependency unit (HDU) postoperatively despite the belief that this is the optimal discharge destination for them from the recovery room. It is unknown if this is associated with an increase in adverse outcomes. We performed an observational study, over a two-month period, comparing outcomes between patients who were admitted to HDU postoperatively and patients who, although an HDU bed was preferred, were discharged from the recovery room to the general ward due to an unavailability of HDU beds. Our primary outcome variable was hospital length-of-stay We found an almost twofold increase in hospital length-of-stay in the group of patients admitted to the HDU. ASA IV patients were more likely to be admitted to HDU. However, the increased length-of-stay in the HDU group persisted even after stratifying patients according to ASA status. There was no difference between groups in all other baseline demographic variables, including POSSUM score, which is used as a predictor of postoperative morbidity and mortality. We believe that the most likely explanation for our findings is that the baseline risk between groups is, in fact, subtly different. This is not detected by preoperative scoring systems. However, clinical judgement in the recovery room appears to select a group of patients for HDU admission who subsequently have a slower postoperative recovery, despite no measurable increase in complication rate. That there was no increase in adverse events in the group of patients unable to be admitted to HDU due to a lack of bed availability suggests that current clinical judgement in a resource-rationed environment is functioning adequately, but the study was not powered to detect such a difference.