MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407834547 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006572

Society of Critical Care Medicine 2024 Guidelines on Adult ICU Design

2025· article· en· W4407834547 on OpenAlexaff
D. Kirk Hamilton, Jodie C. Gary, Elizabeth Scruth, Harry L. Anderson, Charles D. Cadenhead, Simon Oczkowski, Vincent Lau, Jason Adler, Adel Bassily‐Marcus, Benjamin S. Bassin, Joel Boyd, Katharina M. Busl, James R. Crabb, Jason Hecht, Milee Herweijer, Kyle J. Gunnerson, Abdullahi S. Ibrahim, Craig S. Jabaley, Lewis J. Kaplan, Sarah Monchar, Julie Read, B. Christian Renne, Michael G. Sarosi, Sandra M. Swoboda, Kelly A. Thompson-Brazill, Chris Wells, Diana C. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsGrand River HospitalUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineCritical illnessIntensive careEmergency medicineCritically ill

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Advances in technology, infection control challenges-as with the COVID-19 pandemic-and evolutions in patient- and family-centered care highlight ideal aspects of ICU design and opportunities for enhancement. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for clinicians, administrators, and healthcare architects to optimize design strategies in new or renovation projects. PANEL DESIGN: A guidelines panel of 27 members with experience in ICU design met virtually from the panel's inception in 2019 to 2024. The panel represented clinical professionals, architects, engineers, and clinician methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. A formal conflict of interest policy was followed throughout the guidelines-development process. METHODS: Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Central, and Proquest were searched from database inception to September 2023. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations, suggestions, and practice statements for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) question based on quality of evidence and panel consensus. Recommendations were provided when evidence was actionable; suggestions, when evidence was equivocal; and practice statements when the benefits of the intervention appeared to outweigh the risks, but direct evidence to support the intervention did not exist. RESULTS: The ICU Guidelines panel issued 17 recommendations based on 15 PICO questions relating to ICU architecture and design. The panel strongly recommends high-visibility ICU layouts, windows and natural lighting in all patient rooms to enhance sleep and recovery. The panel suggests integrated staff break/respite spaces, advanced infection prevention features, and flexible surge capacity. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel could not make a recommendation around in-room supplies, decentralized charting, and advanced heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. CONCLUSIONS: This ICU design guidelines is intended to provide expert guidance for clinicians, administrators, and healthcare architects considering erecting a new ICU or revising an existing structure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations21
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207