ArticleIntensive care medicine2004
Can the impact of bed closure in intensive care units be reliably monitored?
Article in Intensive care medicine, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intensive care unit caseload and workload and their association with outcomes in critically unwell patients: a large registry-based cohort analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- Article
- Variability of structures in German intensive care units--a representative, nationwide analysis.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2010Article
- Year in review 2007: Critical Care--intensive care unit management.Critical care (London, England) · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the properties of various indicators aimed at monitoring the impact on the activity and patient outcome of a bed closure in a surgical intensive care unit (ICU).
designComparison before and after the intervention.
settingA surgical ICU at a university hospital. PATIENTS: All patients admitted to the unit over two periods of 10 months.
interventionClosure of one bed out of 17. MEASUREMENTS AND
resultsActivity and outcome indicators in the ICU and the structures upstream from it (emergency department, operative theater, recovery room) and downstream from it (intermediate care units). After the bed closure, the monthly medians of admitted patients and ICU hospital days increased from 107 (interquartile range 94-112) to 113 (106-121, P=0.07) and from 360 (325-443) to 395 (345-436, P=0.48), respectively, along with the linear trend observed in our institution. All indicators of workload, patient severity, and outcome remained stable except for SAPS II score, emergency admissions, and ICU readmissions, which increased not only transiently but also on a mid-term basis (10 months), indicating that the process of patient care delivery was no longer predictable.
conclusionsHealth care systems, including ICUs, are extraordinary flexible, and can adapt to multiple external constraints without altering commonly used activity and outcome indicators. It is therefore necessary to set up multiple indicators to be able to reliably monitor the impact of external interventions and intervene rapidly when the system is no longer under control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14991087What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.