↓ Skip to main content

Does space make waste? The influence of ICU bed capacity on admission decisions

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does space make waste? The influence of ICU bed capacity on admission decisions
Published in
Critical Care, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12688
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esteban Mery, Jeremy M Kahn

Abstract

EXPANDED ABSTRACT: CITATION: Stelfox HT, Hemmelgarn BR, Bagshaw SM, Gao S, Doig CJ, Nijssen-Jordan C, Manns B: Intensive care unit bed availability and outcomes for hospitalized patients with sudden clinical deterioration. Arch Intern Med 2012, 172:467-474. BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) beds are a scarce resource, and admissions may require prioritization when demand exceeds supply. However, there are few empiric data on whether the availability of ICU beds influences triage and processes of care for hospitalized patients who develop sudden clinical deterioration. METHODS: OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the effect of ICU bed availability on the processes and outcomes of care for hospitalized patients with sudden clinical deterioration on a hospital ward. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The study was conducted in three hospitals in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, with 2,040 beds and a catchment population of 1.5 million individuals. SUBJECTS: Hospitalized adults (n = 3,494) with a sudden clinical deterioration triggering medical emergency team (MET) activation between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2009 participated. ANALYSIS: This study compared treatments and outcomes among sudden clinical deterioration patients according to the number of ICU beds available (zero, one, two, or more than two) at the time of the MET activation. The outcomes of interest were ICU admission rates (within 2 hours of MET activation), changes in the goals of care (resuscitative, medical, and comfort), and hospital mortality. All analyses were adjusted for hospital, physician, and patient factors. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 3,494 patients. Reduced ICU bed availability was associated with a decreased likelihood of ICU admission within 2 hours of MET activation (P = 0.03) and with an increased likelihood of change in patient goals of care (P <0.01). Patients with sudden clinical deterioration when zero ICU beds were available were 33.0% (95% confidence interval (CI), -5.1% to57.3%) less likely to be admitted to the ICU and were 89.6% (95% CI, 24.9% to 188.0%) more likely to have their goals of care changed compared with when more than two ICU beds were available. However, hospital mortality did not vary significantly by ICU bed availability (P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: For hospitalized patients with sudden clinical deterioration, ICU bed scarcity decreases the probability of ICU admission and increases the probability of initiating comfort measures on the ward but does not influence hospital mortality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 39 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Researcher 8 19%
Other 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Engineering 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Decision Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 7 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2014.
All research outputs
#5,379,297
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,464
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,951
of 205,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#38
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 205,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.