ArticleInternational journal of critical illness and injury science2014
Evaluation of critical care outreach services in a tertiary care Hospital in India: A retrospective analysis.
Article in International journal of critical illness and injury science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rapid Response Teams in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Critical care science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCritical care outreach services (CCOS) is a relatively a new concept in India and is not as developed as in Western countries. Efficient utilization of limited intensive care service requires comprehensive CCOS. Appropriate activation of such services will limit excess burden on already scarce human resources.
aimTo evaluate the functioning of CCOS in a tertiary care hospital and also to identify factors leading to its overactivation. MATERIALS AND
methodsData of 400 calls received in resuscitation room (RR) of the Trauma Center during January 2011-June 2011 was analyzed. Categorical variables were summarized by calculating the frequency and percentage. Records of the department sending the call, purpose of the calls, and designation of the person sending the calls were noted. Calls were grouped into appropriate or inappropriate.
resultsMaximum calls were received from medicine wards (65.8%) followed by neurosurgery ward (12.5%). Of all, 26% of the calls were sent by senior doctors (senior resident), whereas 69.4% of the calls were sent by junior doctors. 66.2% of the calls were indicated for assessment and intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, whereas central venous/intravenous access constituted 14.8% of the calls. Intubation and ventilator settings constituted 7.3 and 7.8% calls, respectively. About one-third (36.2%) of all calls were inappropriate.
conclusionThere is inefficient use of human resources in CCOS in our hospital. Lack of objective activation criteria and inefficient training in basic lifesaving skills and ventilator know-how were identified as primary factors for the same.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.