MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401207577 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000001138

Interprofessional Staffing Pattern Clusters in U.S. ICUs

2024· article· en· W4401207577 on OpenAlexafffund
Hayley B. Gershengorn, Deena Kelly Costa, Allan Garland, Danny Lizano, Hannah Wunsch

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteLeonard M. Miller School of MedicineNational Institutes of HealthManitoba Medical Service FoundationUniversity of Miami
KeywordsIntensivistStaffingRespiratory therapistMedicineNursingPsychological interventionIntensive careCluster (spacecraft)Emergency medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To identify interprofessional staffing pattern clusters used in U.S. ICUs. DESIGN: Latent class analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult U.S. ICUs. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. ANALYSIS: We used data from a staffing survey that queried respondents (n = 596 ICUs) on provider (intensivist and nonintensivist), nursing, respiratory therapist, and clinical pharmacist availability and roles. We used latent class analysis to identify clusters describing interprofessional staffing patterns and then compared ICU and hospital characteristics across clusters. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified three clusters as optimal. Most ICUs (54.2%) were in cluster 1 (“higher overall staffing”) characterized by a higher likelihood of good provider coverage (both intensivist [onsite 24 hr/d] and nonintensivist [orders placed by ICU team exclusively, presence of advanced practice providers, and physicians-in-training]), nursing leadership (presence of charge nurse, nurse educators, and managers), and bedside nursing support (nurses with registered nursing degrees, fewer patients per nurse, and nursing aide availability). One-third (33.7%) were in cluster 2 (“lower intensivist coverage & nursing leadership, higher bedside nursing support”) and 12.1% were in cluster 3 (“higher provider coverage & nursing leadership, lower bedside nursing support”). Clinical pharmacists were more common in cluster 1 (99.4%), but present in greater than 85% of all ICUs; respiratory therapists were nearly universal. Cluster 1 ICUs were larger (median 20 beds vs. 15 and 17 in clusters 2 and 3, respectively; p < 0.001), and in larger (> 250 beds: 80.6% vs. 66.1% and 48.5%; p < 0.001), not-for-profit (75.9% vs. 69.4% and 60.3%; p < 0.001) hospitals. Telemedicine use 24 hr/d was more common in cluster 3 units (71.8% vs. 11.7% and 14.1%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of U.S. ICUs had higher staffing overall. Others tended to have either higher provider presence and nursing leadership or higher bedside nursing support, but not both.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.429 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care ExplorationsSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207