Significance of a Simulation for the Relocation of an Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been few reports concerning simulation drills for the relocation of severely ill or injured patients treated in intensive care units (ICUs). We herein report our experience of one such simulation drill. It is a Narrative method. A simulation drill was performed on a weekday 2 weeks prior to the actual relocation. We selected 3 mock patients. The first one was a severely ill and unstable patient, the second had severe stroke, and the third had severe trauma. After the simulation, the average transportation time was 15 minutes. The simulation revealed that mock patients with a percutaneous cardiopulmonary support system and intra-aortic balloon pumping in a standard ICU bed could not be accommodated in the elevator. Furthermore, working the elevator controls resulted in wasted time while transferring the patients. As a result, the number of people, who controlled the elevator, was therefore increased during the actual relocation. During the actual relocation, all patients were transported safely and more quickly than predicted based on the results of the simulation drill. Most physicians and paramedical staff have little experience with relocating ICUs, so a simulation drill was necessary to ensure the safe and prompt transport of 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".