Adverse Events After Transition From ICU to Hospital Ward: A Multicenter Cohort Study*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine adverse events and associated factors and outcomes during transition from ICU to hospital ward (after ICU discharge). DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Ten adult medical-surgical Canadian ICUs. PATIENTS: Patients were those admitted to one of the 10 ICUs from July 2014 to January 2016. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two ICU physicians independently reviewed progress and consultation notes documented in the medical record within 7 days of patient's ICU discharge date to identify and classify adverse events. The adverse event data were linked to patient characteristics and ICU and ward physician surveys collected during the larger prospective cohort study. Analyses were conducted using multivariable logistic regression. Of the 451 patients included in the study, 84 (19%) experienced an adverse event, the majority (62%) within 3 days of transfer from ICU to hospital ward. Most adverse events resulted only in symptoms (77%) and 36% were judged to be preventable. Patients with adverse events were more likely to be readmitted to the ICU (odds ratio, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.4-13.0), have a longer hospital stay (mean difference, 16.1 d; 95% CI, 8.4-23.7) or die in hospital (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.8-11.8) than those without an adverse event. ICU and ward physician predictions at the time of ICU discharge had low sensitivity and specificity for predicting adverse events, ICU readmissions, and hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events are common after ICU discharge to hospital ward and are associated with ICU readmission, increased hospital length of stay and death and are not predicted by ICU or ward physicians.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".