MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145310488 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201109-1734oc

Twenty-four–Hour Intensivist Presence: A Pilot Study of Effects on Intensive Care Unit Patients, Families, Doctors, and Nurses

2012· article· en· W2145310488 on OpenAlexaffabout
Allan Garland, Dan Roberts, Lesley A. Graff

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensivistMedicineStaffingAutonomyIntensive careIntensive care unitEmergency medicineNursingFamily medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Around-the-clock intensivist presence in intensive care units (ICUs) has been promoted as necessary to optimize outcomes. Little data have addressed how it affects the multiple stakeholders in such care. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of around-the-clock intensivist presence on intensivists, patients, families, housestaff, and nurses. METHODS: This 32-week, crossover pilot trial of two intensivist staffing models, performed in two Canadian ICUs, alternated 8-week blocks of two staffing models: the standard model, where one intensivist worked for 7 days, taking night call from home; and the shift work model, where one intensivist worked 7 day shifts, while other intensivists remained in the ICU at night. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Surveys scaled from 0-100 points assessed outcomes for 24 intensivists (primary outcome: burnout); 119 families (satisfaction); 74 nurses (satisfaction with collaboration and communications, role conflict); and 34 housestaff (autonomy, supervision, and learning opportunities). Outcomes for 501 patients included mortality, length of stay, and resource use. Intensivists doing shift work experienced less burnout (-6.9 points; P = 0.04). Adjusted hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.22; P = 0.44), ICU length of stay (-6 h; P = 0.46), and family satisfaction (0.9 points; P = 0.79) did not differ between staffing models. Under shift work staffing, nurses reported more role conflict (9 points; P < 0.001), whereas nighttime housestaff reported less autonomy, more supervision, but no difference in learning opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Shiftwork staffing was better for intensivists and most were receptive once they had experienced it. Although there were no evident negative outcomes for patients or families, further evaluation is needed to clarify how around-the-clock intensivist staffing influences the various stakeholders in ICU care, given power considerations in this study. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01146691).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations99
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207