Variation in critical care services across North America and Western Europe*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Critical care represents a large percentage of healthcare spending in developed countries. Yet, little is known regarding international variation in critical care services. We sought to understand differences in critical care delivery by comparing data on the distribution of services in eight countries. DESIGN: Retrospective review of existing national administrative data. We identified sources of data in each country to provide information on acute care hospitals and beds, intensive care units and beds, intensive care admissions, and definitions of intensive care beds. Data were all referenced and from as close to 2005 as possible. SETTING: United States, France, United Kingdom, Canada, Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, and Spain. PATIENTS: Not available. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: No standard definition existed for acute care hospital or intensive care unit beds across countries. Hospital beds varied three-fold from 221/100,000 population in the United States to 593/100,000 in Germany. Adult intensive care unit beds also ranged seven-fold from 3.3/100,000 population in the United Kingdom to 24.0/100,000 in Germany. Volume of intensive care unit admissions per year varied ten-fold from 216/100,000 population in the United Kingdom to 2353/100,000 in Germany. The ratio of intensive care unit beds to hospital beds was highly correlated across all countries except the United States (r = .90). There was minimal correlation between the number of intensive care unit beds per capita and health care spending per capita (r = .45), but high inverse correlation between intensive care unit beds and hospital mortality for intensive care unit patients across countries (r = -.82). CONCLUSIONS: Absolute critical care services vary dramatically between countries with wide differences in both numbers of beds and volume of admissions. The number of intensive care unit beds per capita is not strongly correlated with overall health expenditure, but does correlate strongly with mortality. These findings demonstrate the need for critical care data from all countries, as they are essential for interpretation of studies, and policy decisions regarding critical care services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".