MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408006714 · doi:10.1101/2025.02.27.25322947

The impact of Intensive Care Strain on Patients’ Outcomes during COVID-19 - a UNITE COVID study

2025· preprint· en· W4408006714 on OpenAlexaff
Katharina Köhler, Thomas De Corte, Massimiliano Greco, Pedro Póvoa, Maurizio Cecconi, Marlies Ostermann, Jan J. De Waele, Andrew Conway Morris

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakStrain (injury)VirologyPandemicMedicineIntensive careBetacoronavirusIntensive care medicineInternal medicineOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Intensive care unit (ICU) strain is associated with increased mortality. Most strain metrics focus on ‘simple’ measures such as bed occupancy or admission rates. There is limited data on mitigation strategies, such as procedure teams or staff well-being services on strain, or the impact of increased patient-to-nurse ratios and non-ICU trained nurses working in ICU. Methods Using the multi-national UNITE-COVID study, collecting data from ICUs on their busiest day in two periods (2020 and 2021) of the COVID-19 pandemic, we evaluated metrics of strain (Bed occupancy, patient: nurse ratio, use of non-ICU staff and shortages of consumables) and potential mitigators (procedural support teams and staff well-being interventions). We examined how these related to outcomes (mortality, complications and length of stay). Results In both epochs, ICUs experienced significant strain, with ICU bed expansion to 133% and 163% respectively, whilst patient-to-nurse ratios increased by 0.4 and 0.3. Consumable shortages were widespread in 2020. Mortality was inversely correlated with staff well-being interventions in both epochs. Complications were inversely correlated with procedure support teams, and positively correlated with staffing ratios. In regression models, pressure sores were reduced in presence of support teams (p=0.004) and increased with the increase in patients per nurse (p=0.05) whilst unplanned extubations were related to non-ICU trained staff working in ICU(p = 0.02). Conclusions COVID-19 induced ICU strain had effects beyond mortality, including increases in complications. Staff pressure and lack of ICU training were related to specific complications, whilst support teams and well-being interventions were associated with improved outcomes. Take home message We examined the effects of various aspects of ICU strain on patient outcomes during the periods of maximal unit occupancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified adverse relationships between preventable complications and increases in patient:nursing ratios and use of non-ICU trained staff, whilst procedural support teams and staff well-being interventions were associated with better patient outcomes. summary COVID strained ICUs. Increased patient:staff ratios & non-ICU staff increased complications, staff well-being initiatives improved outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→