Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37486677›Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2023

Flow-Sizing Critical Care Resources.

Joseph L Nates, John M Oropello, Neeraj Badjatia, Gregory Beilman, Craig M Coopersmith, Neil A Halpern, Daniel L Herr, Judith Jacobi, Roozehra Kahn, Sharon Leung and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Joseph L NatesThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
John M OropelloMount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY.
Neeraj BadjatiaUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
Gregory BeilmanUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Craig M CoopersmithEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Neil A HalpernMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Daniel L HerrUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
Judith JacobiIndiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN.
Roozehra KahnMedical Alchemy LLC, Los Angeles, CA.
Sharon LeungMontefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY.
Nitin PuriCooper University Health Care, Camden, NJ.
Ayan SenMayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ.
Stephen M PastoresMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Academic Leaders in Critical Care Task Force (ALCCM) of the Society of Critical Care Medicine

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
REGULATION OF THE MACROPHAGE INFLAMMATORY PHENOTYPE IN ARDSR01HL137224 · NHLBI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI CHRISTMAN, JOHN W, KARPURAPU, MANJULA · 2018 to 2025
$4.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL137224
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe the factors affecting critical care capacity and how critical care organizations (CCOs) within academic centers in the U.S. flow-size critical care resources under normal operations, strain, and surge conditions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, federal agency and American Hospital Association reports, and previous CCO survey results were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies and reports of critical care bed capacity and utilization within CCOs and in the United States were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: The Academic Leaders in the Critical Care Medicine Task Force established regular conference calls to reach a consensus on the approach of CCOs to "flow-sizing" critical care services. DATA SYNTHESIS: The approach of CCOs to "flow-sizing" critical care is outlined. The vertical (relation to institutional resources, e.g., space allocation, equipment, personnel redistribution) and horizontal (interdepartmental, e.g., emergency department, operating room, inpatient floors) integration of critical care delivery (ICUs, rapid response) for healthcare organizations and the methods by which CCOs flow-size critical care during normal operations, strain, and surge conditions are described. The advantages, barriers, and recommendations for the rapid and efficient scaling of critical care operations via a CCO structure are explained. Comprehensive guidance and resources for the development of "flow-sizing" capability by a CCO within a healthcare organization are provided.

conclusionsWe identified and summarized the fundamental principles affecting critical care capacity. The taskforce highlighted the advantages of the CCO governance model to achieve rapid and cost-effective "flow-sizing" of critical care services and provide recommendations and resources to facilitate this capability. The relevance of a comprehensive approach to "flow-sizing" has become particularly relevant in the wake of the latest COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the growing risks of another extreme epidemic, planning for adequate capacity to confront the next critical care crisis is urgent.

Indexed as

Critical CarePandemicsDelivery of Health CareEmergency Service, HospitalHumansIntensive Care UnitsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID37486677
PMCPMC11192408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.