MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163503096 · doi:10.1177/19375867211009273

Intensive Care Unit Built Environments: A Comprehensive Literature Review (2005–2020)

2021· review· en· W3163503096 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Verderber, Seth Gray, Shivathmikha Suresh-Kumar, Damian Kercz, Christopher S. Parshuram

Bibliographic record

VenueHERD Health Environments Research & Design Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesInstitute for Work & HealthPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYIntensive careAmenityPandemicSustainabilityMedicinePsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseIntensive care medicineEcologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The intensive care environment in hospitals has been the subject of significant empirical and qualitative research in the 2005-2020 period. Particular attention has been devoted to the role of infection control, family engagement, staff performance, and the built environment ramifications of the recent COVID-19 global pandemic. A comprehensive review of this literature is reported summarizing recent advancements in this rapidly expanding body of knowledge. PURPOSE AND AIM: This comprehensive review conceptually structures the recent medical intensive care literature to provide conceptual clarity and identify current priorities and future evidence-based research and design priorities. METHOD AND RESULT: Each source reviewed was classified as one of the five types-opinion pieces/essays, cross-sectional empirical investigations, nonrandomized comparative investigations, randomized studies, and policy review essays-and into nine content categories: nature engagement and outdoor views; family accommodations; intensive care unit (ICU), neonatal ICU, and pediatric ICU spatial configuration and amenity; noise considerations; artificial and natural lighting; patient safety and infection control; portable critical care field hospitals and disaster mitigation facilities including COVID-19; ecological sustainability; and recent planning and design trends and prognostications. CONCLUSIONS: Among the findings embodied in the 135 literature sources reviewed, single-bed ICU rooms have increasingly become the norm; family engagement in the ICU experience has increased; acknowledgment of the therapeutic role of staff amenities; exposure to nature, view, and natural daylight has increased; the importance of ecological sustainability; and pandemic concerns have increased significantly in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Discussion of the results of this comprehensive review includes topics noticeably overlooked or underinvestigated in the 2005-2020 period and priorities for future research.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0260.029
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.484
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.075 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations66
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHERD Health Environments Research & Design JournalSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207