OP026 Topic: AS11–Healthcare Systems/Economic Evaluation/Capacity Building/Administration/Other: CHARACTERIZATION OF CANADIAN PICU INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN AND RENOVATIONS: A NATIONAL CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims & Objectives: Little is known nationally about Canadian PICU infrastructure, which is delivered and planned provincially. We aim to understand current PICU ages, architecture, and renovations. Methods: PICU Medical Directors or their delegates from all 18 PICUs were eligible. The survey included current unit design; renovations since opening; planned renovations and redevelopment, and how clinicians interact with the built environment. Survey data were analyzed in R version 4.2.2 (R Foundation). Results: Seventeen units were surveyed May-September 2023 (94%). Current PICU facilities were built from 1980-2020 (median 2009) and operate a median of 12 beds (range 4-24). Eleven units (61%) were renovated a median 5 years (range 1-27) after opening to update ventilation, patient room head units, and family facilities. The newer 11 PICUs with only single patient rooms were arranged in pods or O, U, or L shaped configurations and were rated as more private with less ambient noise compared to the 6 units with both single and multi-bedrooms. Four new PICUs to open before 2030 are being designed and 5 (33%) anticipate needing a new unit within the next 10 years due to aging infrastructure and increasing patient numbers and complexity. Considering Medical Director projections and historical renovations, we estimate that Canadian PICUs have a 27-year lifespan with major remodeling or new unit construction occurring thereafter. Conclusions: Canadian PICU design has evolved to meet industry best practices including single patient rooms but challenges with ambient noise remain. For existing ICUs, renovations occurred early after opening, which has important financial implications for future ICU planning. Keywords: architecture, PICU design, PICU infrastructure, built environment
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 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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; 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".