Surge Capacity: Analysis of Census Fluctuations to Estimate the Number of Intensive Care Unit Beds Needed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare methods of characterizing intensive care unit (ICU) bed use and estimate the number of beds needed. STUDY SETTING: Three geographic regions in the Canadian province of Manitoba. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of population-based data from April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2007. METHODS: We compared three methods to estimate ICU bed requirements. Method 1 analyzed yearly patient-days. Methods 2 and 3 analyzed day-to-day fluctuations in patient census; these differed by whether each hospital needed to independently fulfill its own demand or this resource was shared across hospitals. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Three main findings were as follows: (1) estimates based on yearly average usage generally underestimated the number of beds needed compared to analysis of fluctuations in census, especially in the smaller regions where underestimation ranged 25-58 percent; (2) 4-29 percent fewer beds were needed if it was acceptable for demand to exceed supply 18 days/year, versus 4 days/year; and (3) 13-36 percent fewer beds were needed if hospitals within a region could effectively share ICU beds. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to using yearly averages, analyzing day-to-day fluctuations in patient census gives a more accurate picture of ICU bed use. Failing to provide adequate "surge capacity" can lead to demand that frequently and severely exceeds supply.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".