Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33277292›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2020

Assembly Line ICU: what the Long Shops taught us about managing surge capacity for COVID-19.

Callum Oakley, Craig Pascoe, Daivd Balthazor, Davinia Bennett, Nandan Gautam, John Isaac, Peter Isherwood, Tracie Matthews, Nick Murphy, Tessa Oelofse and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Interprofessional Team Staffing in U.S. Intensive Care Units.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on critical care healthcare professionals' work practices and wellbeing: A qualitative study.Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Callum OakleyDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3246-8970
Craig PascoeDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Daivd BalthazorDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Davinia BennettDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Nandan GautamDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7972-5925
John IsaacDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Peter IsherwoodDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3887-7169
Tracie MatthewsDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Nick MurphyDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Tessa OelofseDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jaimin PatelDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4120-3923
Catherine SnelsonDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1790-0780
Carla RichardsonDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jeremy WillsonDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2260-242X
Fiona WytonDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Tonny VeenithDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4125-8804
Tony WhitehouseDepartment of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Tony.Whitehouse@uhb.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4387-3421
QEHB COVID-19 Response Team
Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo safely expand and adapt the normal workings of a large critical care unit in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsIn April 2020, UK health systems were challenged to expand critical care capacity rapidly during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic so that they could accommodate patients with respiratory and multiple organ failure. Here, we describe the preparation and adaptive responses of a large critical care unit to the oncoming burden of disease. Our changes were similar to the revolution in manufacturing brought about by 'Long Shops' of 1853 when Richard Garrett and Sons of Leiston started mass manufacture of traction engines. This innovation broke the whole process into smaller parts and increased productivity. When applied to COVID-19 preparations, an assembly line approach had the advantage that our ICU became easily scalable to manage an influx of additional staff as well as the increase in admissions. Healthcare professionals could be replaced in case of absence and training focused on a smaller number of tasks.

resultsCompared with the equivalent period in 2019, the ICU provided 30.9% more patient days (2599 to 3402), 1845 of which were ventilated days (compared with 694 in 2019, 165.8% increase) while time from first referral to ICU admission reduced from 193.8±123.8 min (±SD) to 110.7±76.75 min (±SD). Throughout, ICU maintained adequate capacity and also accepted patients from neighbouring hospitals. This was done by managing an additional 205 doctors (70% increase), 168 nurses who had previously worked in ICU and another 261 nurses deployed from other parts of the hospital (82% increase).Our large tertiary hospital ensured a dedicated non-COVID ICU was staffed and equipped to take regional emergency referrals so that those patients requiring specialist surgery and treatment were treated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

conclusionsWe report how the challenge of managing a huge influx of patients and redeployed staff was met by deconstructing ICU care into its constituent parts. Although reported from the largest colocated ICU in the UK, we believe that this offers solutions to ICUs of all sizes and may provide a generalisable model for critical care pandemic surge planning.

Indexed as

COVID-19Critical CareHospitalizationIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsSurge CapacityTertiary Care CentersEmergency Service, HospitalHealth PersonnelHumansModels, OrganizationalSARS-CoV-2crisis managementcritical carehospital medicine

Identifiers

PMID33277292
PMCPMC7722360
OpenAlexW3110376197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.