Recommendations for intensive care follow-up clinics; report from a survey and conference of Dutch intensive cares.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing awareness of postintensive care syndrome and the unbridled development of post-ICU clinics in the Netherlands, guidelines for ICU after care are needed. The purpose of this study was to develop recommendations for the set-up of post-ICU clinics. METHODS: Recommendations regarding the design of post-ICU clinics were formulated based on a survey among Dutch ICUs and the available literature. Subsequently, in a round table conference stakeholders discussed and voted on a final approval of the recommendations. RESULTS: The response rate of our survey was 70% (57 of 82), 40% of the respondents provided ICU after care. Twenty-one people from 16 ICUs participated in the round table conference. Only two studies are available with information on organization and effectiveness of post-ICU clinics. It is recommended to invite patients who are mechanically ventilated for more than 2 days at a post-ICU clinic between 6 and 12 weeks after hospital discharge and screen for physical, psychological and cognitive impairments by using validated electronic patient-reported questionnaires. The set-up of a national registry for benchmarking and research purposes is suggested. CONCLUSION: This study recommends how to organize post-ICU clinics based on literature and expert opinion. The implementation of the recommendations will facilitate the set-up of post-ICU clinics, research on effectiveness of post-ICU clinics and benchmarking of quality of ICU care.
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 | 0.015 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".