ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022
What you see may not be what you get! Simulate towards effective planning of pediatric intensive care unit.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims and objectives: This study aimed to describe the application of low-cost inter-professional simulation over 4 phases in identifying structural and design issues, latent safety threats as well as test systems, processes, including facilitated team training during the design of a new pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Materials and methods: The four-phase inter-professional simulation sessions involving clinical and non-clinical teams were conducted over a 3-month period in a corporate hospital during the designing of a new PICU. Low-cost resources, such as floor tapes, low-tech manikins, reused sterilized consumables, and actual patient beds and equipment, were used for the Results: There were 10 simulation sessions conducted over 4 phases during the 3-month period of designing the PICU. The participants included 10 doctors from PICU and adult critical care, 25 critical care nurses, 12 members from the project team, and 2 hospital administrators in various combinations. The first phase led to the re-design of workspace and clinical areas for better space utilization. The second phase required further revision to facilitate better mobility and facilities. In the third phase, the number of beds was reduced to 6 beds following the simulated drills involving the actual placement of patient cots and equipment. The fourth phase had thematic 5 simulated exercises involving the newly recruited clinical teams that enabled the identification of systems and process issues. Cognitive aids and video orientation of the setup, team training, and human factors training were addressed, and the unit was open for patient care in a week. Conclusion: A phased inter-professional simulation exercise with low-cost resources can enable the identification of structural challenges, design issues, latent safety threats, test systems, processes, patient flow, and facilitated team training during the design of a new PICU. Further studies are needed to understand the generalization of the study findings into designing PICU.
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.