ArticleChest2025
The Minnesota Critical Care Working Group 2: Crisis Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic, July 2021 through March 2022.
Article in Chest, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-Hospital Pediatric Surge Response to an RSV Epidemic in a US State: Oregon, 2022.Disaster medicine and public health preparedness · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
44 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Minnesota State Healthcare Coordination Center requested that the Minnesota Critical Care Working Group (CCWG) and Ethics Working Group (EWG), comprising interprofessional leaders from Minnesota's 9 largest health systems, plan and coordinate critical care operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the fall 2021 surge. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a statewide working group collaboratively analyze real-time evidence to identify crisis conditions and to engage state leadership to implement care processes? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsThe CCWG and EWG met via videoconferencing during the severe surge of fall 2021 to analyze evidence and plan for potential crisis care conditions. Five sources of evidence informed their actions: group consensus on operating conditions, federal teletracking data, the Medical Operations Coordination Center (MOCC) patient placement data, and 2 surveys created and distributed to hospitals and health care professionals. The group developed and recommended processes to mitigate the conditions and engaged statewide leadership for support.
resultsEvidence of crisis conditions included rising numbers of patients with COVID-19, tertiary care centers with difficulty accepting transfers (including emergencies), severe emergency department crowding, activation of ICU allocation teams, and low patient placement rate at the Minnesota MOCC. A statewide hospital survey demonstrated numerous staffing adaptations, expansion of telemedicine, and delay of nonemergent procedures. A survey of health care professionals revealed instances of poor patient outcomes, bedside rationing, implicit triage, and moral distress. Leadership engagement resulted in public messaging, although no change in how ICU care was allocated, nor were transfers managed.
interpretationThe CCWG collected and analyzed evidence demonstrating crisis conditions and health care professional moral distress during the fall 2021 COVID-19 surge. However, the group had a limited impact on care processes. This article analyzes the group's efforts. It includes recommendations for researchers and policy makers.
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.