ArticleAcute and critical care2026
Developing consensus-based indicators for intensive care unit capacity and capability in South Korea: a modified Delphi study.
Article in Acute and critical care, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntensive care units (ICUs) are essential components of modern healthcare systems, but South Korea lacks capability-based standards for ICU classification. Critically ill patients are frequently assigned based on bed availability rather than clinical need, creating mismatches between patient acuity and ICU capability. The aim of this study was to develop consensus-based indicators for assessing ICU capacity and capability in South Korea.
methodsA modified Delphi study was conducted with 24 multidisciplinary experts, including members of the Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Standardization Committee. Based on a systematic review of international ICU frameworks (SCCM, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society), 42 candidate indicators across six domains were evaluated over three rounds (April-July 2025). Consensus was defined as a content validity ratio ≥ a preset critical threshold and ≥75% expert agreement.
resultsThe response rates were 79.2%-91.7% across rounds. The final framework comprises 29 indicators across four domains: Capacity (staffing, facilities, bed management), Capability (life support, specialized care), Human resources (physician and allied health coverage), and Space and equipment infrastructure (monitoring and safety systems). The experts prioritized functional capabilities over structural metrics: nurse-to-bed ratios were rated more important than physician numbers, and 24/7 service availability was prioritized over personnel counts. Ward support, education, and research indicators did not reach consensus.
conclusionsThis study establishes the first expert consensus framework for ICU capability assessment in South Korea. The 29 indicators provide a foundation for a capability-oriented classification system that prioritizes patient safety and efficient resource allocation. Future research should validate these indicators against clinical outcomes and explore real-time ICU capacity monitoring strategies.
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.