Environmental Sustainability in ICUs: A Report From the Society of Critical Care Medicine Sustainability Task Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The charge of the newly formed Society of Critical Care Medicine Sustainability Task Force is to describe actionable items supporting environmental stewardship for ICUs, to discuss barriers associated with sustainability initiatives and outline opportunities for future impact. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, EBSCOhost CINAHL, Elsevier Embase, and Scopus databases were searched through to March 2024 for studies reporting on environmental sustainability and critical care. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews, narrative reviews, quality improvement projects, randomized clinical trials, and observational studies were prioritized for review. Bibliographies from retrieved articles were scanned for articles that may have been missed. DATA EXTRACTION: Data regarding environmental sustainability initiatives that aimed to quantify, manage, or mitigate pollution and/or carbon emissions with a focus on ICUs, barriers to change, and opportunities for development were qualitatively assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: ICUs are resource-intensive and as such, methods to attenuate carbon emissions and waste can play a substantial role in mitigating the sizable burden of healthcare-related pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Several initiatives and strategies exist for clinicians and providers to engage in environmental stewardship, with specific attention to avoiding low-value care while maintaining or improving patient safety and high-quality care. Increased focus on sustainability can be met with resistance to change, including institutional, financial, and behavioral barriers. Collaboration and innovative thinking create valuable opportunities for clinicians, patients, families, and policymakers to advocate for patient and planetary health. CONCLUSIONS: Within the healthcare system, ICUs are well positioned to lead sustainability action, policy, and practice. Critical care teams have the capability and the moral responsibility to mitigate the negative impact of critical care medicine upon our environment and become change agents promoting sustainable healthcare for the benefit of human health.
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 | 0.053 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".