ArticleCritical care medicine2019
U.K. Intensivists' Preferences for Patient Admission to ICU: Evidence From a Choice Experiment.
Article in Critical care medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intensive care after vascular surgery: systematic review.The British journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- RSV-related hospital admissions in a subset of hospitals in England and Scotland: A real-world study (2018-2023).Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Intensive care under uncertainty: a qualitative study of how older patients and their relatives wish to contribute to decision-making.European geriatric medicine · 2026Observational
- Predicting ICU transfer for high-risk patients upon medical admission via the medical intensive care prediction score (MICAPS).BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Age and grit in prioritising intensive care: - a mixed-methods approach of normative challenges.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Reliability and validity of a new postoperative track assessment tool (PoTra-tool) as a decision-making aid: A prospective observational study.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2025Article
- Impact of patient sex on selection for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2025Article
- The (un)surprising resilience of octogenarians in intensive care.Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Prognosticating the outcome of intensive care in older patients-a narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2024Review
- Factors that influence paramedic decision-making about resuscitation for treatment of out of hospital cardiac arrest: Results of a discrete choice experiment in National Health Service ambulance trusts in England and Wales.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Limiting life-sustaining treatment for very old ICU patients: cultural challenges and diverse practices.Annals of intensive care · 2023Article
- Triage of Critically Ill Patients: Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Refused as Too Well for Intensive Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Contribution of information about acute and geriatric characteristics to decisions about life-sustaining treatment for old patients in intensive care.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Who gets the ventilator? A multicentre survey of intensivists' opinions of triage during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
- A real-time integrated framework to support clinical decision making for covid-19 patients.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2022Article
- Frailty Triage: Is Rationing Intensive Medical Treatment on the Grounds of Frailty Ethical?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2021Review
- Behavioural artificial intelligence technology for COVID-19 intensivist triage decisions: making the implicit explicit.Intensive care medicine · 2021Article
- Long-term trends in critical care admissions in Wales*Anaesthesia · 2021Article
- Physicians' Views and Agreement about Patient- and Context-Related Factors Influencing ICU Admission Decisions: A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDeciding whether to admit a patient to the ICU requires considering several clinical and nonclinical factors. Studies have investigated factors associated with the decision but have not explored the relative importance of different factors, nor the interaction between factors on decision-making. We examined how ICU consultants prioritize specific factors when deciding whether to admit a patient to ICU.
designInformed by a literature review and data from observation and interviews with ICU clinicians, we designed a choice experiment. Senior intensive care doctors (consultants) were presented with pairs of patient profiles and asked to prioritize one of the patients in each task for admission to ICU. A multinomial logit and a latent class logit model was used for the data analyses.
settingOnline survey across U.K. intensive care. SUBJECTS: Intensive care consultants working in NHS hospitals. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOf the factors investigated, patient's age had the largest impact at admission followed by the views of their family, and severity of their main comorbidity. Physiologic measures indicating severity of illness had less impact than the gestalt assessment by the ICU registrar. We identified four distinct decision-making patterns, defined by the relative importance given to different factors.
conclusionsICU consultants vary in the importance they give to different factors in deciding who to prioritize for ICU admission. Transparency regarding which factors have been considered in the decision-making process could reduce variability and potential inequity for patients.
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.