Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42472163›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

The ICUPASS Study: Variability, Influencing Factors, and Clinician Stress in ICU Admission Decisions.

Cyril Chacko, Girish Kanna, Shaveta Devasar, Amit Sharma, Thomas Fisher, Jagatar S Pooni, Andrew Macduff, Shameer Gopal, Kesaven Dhamodaran, Suresh Renukappa and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Cyril ChackoCritical Care Medicine, Royal Wolverhampton Hospital, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Girish KannaCritical Care Medicine, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Shaveta DevasarCritical Care Medicine, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Amit SharmaAnesthesia and Critical Care, Royal Stoke University Hospital, London, GBR.
Thomas FisherCritical Care, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Jagatar S PooniCritical Care Medicine, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Andrew MacduffCritical Care Medicine, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Shameer GopalCritical Care, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Kesaven DhamodaranCritical Care, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Suresh RenukappaCritical Care Medicine, Royal Wolverhampton Hospital, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Suresh SubashiniFaculty of Science and Engineering, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Suneesh ThilakCritical Care Medicine, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Krishna NavaneethamCritical Care Medicine, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Syed HaqueCritical Care Medicine, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Palliniswamy MatheswaranCritical Care Medicine, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Nasa PrashantCritical Care Medicine, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Tonny VeenithCritical Care Medicine, Royal Wolverhampton Hospital, Wolverhampton, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives The objectives of this study were to quantify the variability in intensive care unit (ICU) admission decisions, identify influencing factors, and measure the associated stress among different groups of healthcare professionals. Design This was a cross-sectional survey using 10 standardised clinical vignettes. Setting The study was conducted in ICUs in the West Midlands, UK. Participants The study included 84 ICU professionals, categorised as decision-makers ([DMs] consultants and senior registrars, n=47) or non-decision-makers ([NDMs] other clinical staff, n=37). Main outcome measures For each vignette, respondents rated the likelihood of admission, associated stress, and likelihood of admission with unlimited resources on a 10-point Likert scale. The primary reason for non-admission was also selected. Results Admission likelihood was heterogeneous across all vignettes (median 5, IQR 6), with no significant difference between DMs and NDMs. DMs reported significantly lower stress than NDMs (median 4 vs 5, p<0.001). Clinically ambiguous vignettes showed the highest variability and stress. Counterintuitively, admission likelihood was significantly lower under a hypothetical unlimited-resources scenario (median 3 vs 5, p<0.001). "Futility" was the most common reason cited for non-admission. Conclusions Substantial variability and stress are inherent to ICU admission decisions, even among experienced clinicians. Subjective clinician factors shape decisions alongside objective patient data, underscoring the need for decision-support tools in ambiguous cases and strategies to ease the psychological burden on clinical staff.

Indexed as

clinical decision-makingclinical variabilitycross sectional studiesfutilityhealth care disparitiesintensive care unitpractice variationpsychological stresstriagevignette based surveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID42472163
PMCPMC13379718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.