Interprofessional Staffing Pattern Clusters in U.S. ICUs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".