ArticleAnnals of intensive care2025
Formal guidelines from an expert panel: intensive care unit medical staffing, organisation and working hours to improve quality of life at work in France.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2025. 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntensive care units (ICU) are characterized by high medical assistance costs and great complexity. Recommendations to determine the needs of medical staff are scarce, generating appreciable variability. The French Intensive Care Society (FICS) and the French National Council of Intensive Care Medicine (CNP MIR, Conseil National Professionel de Médecine Intensive Réanimation) have established a technical committee of experts, the purposes of which were to draft recommendations regarding staffing needs in ICUs and to propose optimal organisation of work hours, a key objective being improved workplace quality of life.
resultsLiterature analysis was conducted according to the GRADE methodology (Grade of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation). The synthesis work of the experts according to the GRADE method led to the development of 22 recommendations in 6 field. The experts issued a strong recommendation associated with a high level of evidence which is that work organization be given priority during periods of permanent care, with a maximum 16 h of consecutive work permitted. For 21 other recommendations, the level of evidence did not allow GRADE classification, and led to the formulation of expert opinions. All recommendations and expert opinions were validated (strong agreement).
conclusionThe work in the intensive care unit and in the intermediate intensive care unit is multifaceted, both clinical and non-clinical, and must include at least the following continuity and quality for patient safety. This document provides a detailed framework to propose an optimal medical staff.
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.