MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283790176 · doi:10.5430/jha.v11n1p23

Critical care resources, disaster preparedness, and sepsis management: Survey results from the Asia Pacific region

2022· article· en· W4283790176 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ashwani Kumar, Brett Abbenbroek, Naomi Hammond, Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan, Lowell Ling, Louise Thwaites, Sheila Nainan Myatra, Simon Finfer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessMedicinePsychological interventionEmergency managementSnowball samplingSepsisEmergency medicineMedical emergencyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is paucity of data on critical care resources, disaster preparedness, and sepsis management in countries within the Asia Pacific region. An online survey was conducted from 15 April to 17 July 2020. Snowball sampling through the Asia Pacific Sepsis Alliance and network contacts was used to recruit respondents. Countries were grouped according to the World Bank Country Income 2019 classification into lower-middle income (LMIC), upper-middle income (UMIC), and high-income (HIC). Survey questions addressed to hospital characteristics, critical care resources, disaster preparedness, and sepsis management. In total, 59 hospitals from 15 countries responded (33 LMICs, 8 UMICs, 18 HICs) with most responses from the Philippines (10; 16.9%). Median [Inter-quartile range (IQR)] hospital and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) bed capacity was 798 (500–1,001) and 37 (19–59), respectively. Median (IQR) doctor-to-patient and nurse-to-patient day ratios were 1:5 (1:3–1:8) and 1:2 (1:1–1:2), respectively. Availability of 24/7 physiotherapy services, 24/7 Medical resonance Imaging (MRI), point-of-care lactate, and “reserve” antibiotics was limited. Most ICUs had a disaster management plan (88%) and access to Personal Protective Equipment (96%). The most commonly adopted sepsis guideline was the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines (77%). LMIC/UMIC ICUs had lower nurse-to patient ratio and surge capacity along with limited access to 24/7 physiotherapy and MRI services, and interventions like Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation, and Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy. Self-reported adoption and adherence to sepsis guidelines was higher in LMICs/UMICs than HICs. In the Asia Pacific region, critical care resources, disaster preparedness and management of sepsis vary considerably between countries across different income categories. In particular, low surge and isolation capacity in LMICs highlights the need for better health service planning and preparation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207