Ary Serpa Neto | Search PubMed

PubMed2026

Measuring economic efficiency in adult intensive care units: A systematic review of methods, metrics, and evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Intensive care units (ICUs) consume substantial hospital resources, yet "efficiency" is inconsistently defined and measured. This study systematically reviewed how economic efficiency has been conceptualised and quantified in adult ICUs and appraised the quality of evidence. METHODS: Following PRISMA 2020 and a PROSPERO-registered protocol (CRD420251107866), we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science (2000-August 2025), plus global grey sources. Eligible studies explicitly defined efficiency and reported an efficiency metric/model linking ICU inputs (e.g., staff, beds/capacity, time, consumables, or costs) to outputs/outcomes (e.g., throughput/discharges, length of stay/resource use, risk-adjusted mortality). Dual independent screening and extraction were performed. Study quality was appraised using MMAT, and findings were synthesised narratively (SWiM), given heterogeneity. RESULTS: 39 studies (2001-2025) from 17 countries were included, all from high-income or upper-middle-income settings. Four methodological families were identified: (1) frontier modelling (predominantly DEA; occasional SFA/RFDH), (2) benchmarking indicators (risk-adjusted mortality and LOS/resource-use ratios; "efficiency matrix" quadrant classification), (3) cost-outcome evaluations, and (4) operational/process metrics. Across families, variation in decision-making units, input/output selection, and risk adjustment limited comparability; long-term and patient-reported outcomes were absent, and equity considerations were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: ICU efficiency research is feasible but fragmented and often methodologically limited. Standardised definitions, validated risk adjustment, uncertainty quantification, and inclusion of patient-centred and equity-relevant outcomes are needed before efficiency metrics can reliably inform value-based decision making.

Intensive Care Units↗

PubMed2026

Alarms and alarm management with automated versus conventional ventilation in neurocritical care patients.

INTRODUCTION: False or clinically irrelevant alarms are a major driver of ICU alarm fatigue and nursing workload. Ventilator alarms make up a large share, and although automated ventilation modes can reduce manual adjustments, their effect on alarm burden is still unclear. This issue can be particularly relevant in neurocritical care patients, where precise ventilator and alarm management is imperative for patient safety. OBJECTIVES: This explorative post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial compared alarm frequency and management between automated ventilation and conventional ventilation in neurocritical care patients. METHODS: Ventilator alarms and manual ventilator changes were captured continuously from the ventilator for up to 24 h per patient. The primary endpoint was a composite of workload-relevant alarms; with alarm management interventions at the ventilator as a key secondary outcome. Additional endpoints included redundant alarms, alarm duration and ventilator management. RESULTS: 13 patients received automated ventilation and 24 received conventional ventilation. No difference was observed in workload-relevant alarm frequency between automated and conventional ventilation (3.28 [2.87 to 4.30] vs 3.73 [1.66 to 7.33] alarms per hour; P = 0.81), while alarm management interventions at the ventilator were lower with automated ventilation (0.14 [0.10 to 0.15] vs 0.21 [0.17 to 0.31] interventions per hour; P = 0.01). Other alarm frequencies, duration of alarms and ventilator management were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial in neurocritical care patients during the early phase of mechanical ventilation, automated ventilation did not reduce the frequency of total or workload-relevant alarms, nor their duration, but was associated with fewer alarm management interventions compared to conventional ventilation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Automated ventilation may not reduce alarm frequency in neurocritical care patients, but the observed reduction in alarm-related bedside interventions suggests a potential benefit for nursing workload.

Humans↗