A Generic Simulation Model of the Relative Cost-Effectiveness of ICU Versus Step-Down (IMCU) Expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: (IMCU) capacity expansion. Relative cost-effectiveness of the two investment strategies with regard to patient lives saved has not been studied to date. METHODS: We expand a generic system dynamics simulation model of emergency patient flow in a typical hospital, populated with empirical evidence found in the medical and hospital administration literature, to estimate the long-term effects of expanding ICU versus IMCU beds on patient lives saved under a common assumption of 2.1% annual increase in hospital arrivals. Two alternative policies of expanding ICU by two beds versus introducing a two-bed IMCU are compared over a ten-year simulation period. Russel equation is used to calculate total cost of patients' hospitalization. Using two possible values for the ratio of ICU to IMCU cost per inpatient day and four possible values for the percentage of patients transferred from ICU to IMCU found in the literature, nine scenarios are compared against the baseline scenario of no capacity expansion. RESULTS: Expanding ICU capacity by two beds is demonstrated as the most cost-effective scenario with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 3684 (US $) per life saved against the baseline scenario. Sensitivity analyses on the mortality rate of patients in IMCU, direct transfer of IMCU-destined patients to the ward upon completing required IMCU length of stay in the ICU, admission of IMCU patient to ICU, adding two ward beds, and changes in hospital size do not change the superiority of ICU expansion over other scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of operational costs, ICU beds are more cost effective for saving patients than IMCU beds. However, capital costs of setting up ICU versus IMCU beds should be considered for a complete economic analysis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".