ArticleJournal of critical care2022
A critical care outreach team under strain - Evaluation of the service provided to patients with haematological malignancy during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Article in Journal of critical care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCritical Care Outreach Teams (CCOTs) have been associated with improved outcomes in patients with haematological malignancy (HM). This study aims to describe CCOT activation by patients with HM before and during the Covid-19 pandemic, assess amny association with worse outcomes, and examine the psychological impact on the CCOT. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective, mixed-methods analysis was performed in HM patients reviewed by the CCOT over a two-year period, 01 July 2019 to 31 May 2021.
resultsThe CCOT increased in size during the surge period and reviewed 238 HM patients, less than in the pre- and post-surge periods. ICU admission in the baseline, surge and the non-surge periods were 41.7%, 10.4% and 47.9% respectively. ICU mortality was 22.5%, 0% and 21.7% for the same times. Time to review was significantly decreased (p = 0.012). Semi-structured interviews revealed four themes of psychological distress: 1) time-critical work; 2) non-evidence based therapies; 3) feelings of guilt; 4) increased decision-making responsibility.
conclusionsDespite the increase in total hospital referrals, the number of patients with HM that were reviewed during the surge periods decreased, as did their ICU admission rate and mortality. The quality of care provided was not impaired, as reflected by the number of patients receiving bedside reviews and the shorter-than-pre-pandemic response time.
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.