Cost of Futile ICU Care in One Ontario Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical care is a costly and finite resource that provides the ability to manage patients with life-threatening illnesses in the most advanced forms available. However, not every condition benefits from critical care. There are unrecoverable health states in which it should not be used to perpetuate. Such situations are considered futile. The determination of medical futility remains controversial. In this study we describe the length of stay (LOS), cost, and long-term outcomes of 12 cases considered futile and that have been or were considered for adjudication by Ontario's Consent and Capacity Board (CBB). A chart review was undertaken to identify patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), whose care was deemed futile and cases were considered for, or brought before the CCB. Costs for each of these admissions were determined using the case-costing system of The Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse. All 12 patients identified had a LOS of greater than 4 months (range: 122-704 days) and a median age 83.5 years. Seven patients died in hospital, while 5 were transferred to long term or acute care facilities. All patients ultimately died without returning to independent living situations. The total cost of care for these 12 patients was $7 897 557.85 (mean: $658 129.82). There is a significant economic cost of providing resource-intensive critical care to patients in which these treatments are considered futile. Clinicians should carefully consider the allocation of finite critical care resources in order to utilize them in a way that most benefits patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".