Prevalence and Readmission Rates of Discharge Directly Home From the PICU: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Critically ill patients are increasingly being discharged directly home from PICU as opposed to discharged home, via the ward. The objective was to assess the prevalence, safety, and satisfaction of discharge directly home from PICUs. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for studies published between January 1991 and June 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We included observational or randomized studies, of children up to 18 years old, that reported on the prevalence, safety, or satisfaction of discharge directly home from the PICU, compared with the ward. Safety outcomes included readmission, unplanned visits to hospital, and any adverse events. We excluded case series, reviews, and studies discharging patients to other facilities. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers evaluated 88 full-text articles; five studies met eligibility (362,868 patients). Only one study had discharge directly home as a primary outcome. DATA SYNTHESIS: Prevalence of discharge directly to home from the PICU ranged from less than 1% to 23% (random effects proportion 7.7 [95% CI, 1.3-18.6]). Readmissions to the PICU (only safety outcome) were significantly lower in the discharge directly home group compared with the ward group, in two of three studies (p < 0.0001). No studies reported on patient or family satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of discharge directly home from the PICU ranges from 1% to 23%. PICU readmission rates do not appear to increase after discharge directly home. Caution is needed in the interpretation of the results, given the significant heterogeneity of the included studies. Further high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the safety of discharge directly home from the PICU and support families in this transition.
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 | 0.017 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".