Tuesday, August 26, 2025

 

The Law of Unintended Consequences in Critical Care: Anticipating Second-Order Effects of Well-Intentioned Interventions

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: In critical care medicine, therapeutic interventions designed to restore physiological homeostasis can paradoxically generate new pathophysiological cascades. This phenomenon, termed the "law of unintended consequences," represents a fundamental challenge in intensive care unit (ICU) management where well-meaning treatments may precipitate unforeseen complications.

Objective: To examine the mechanisms underlying common unintended consequences of critical care interventions and provide evidence-based strategies for anticipation and mitigation.

Methods: Comprehensive review of literature from 2015-2024, focusing on oxygen therapy, fluid resuscitation, and antibiotic stewardship complications.

Results: Three major paradigms emerge: hyperoxia-induced cellular injury despite SpO₂ optimization, fluid overload cascading to intra-abdominal hypertension and organ dysfunction, and antibiotic-associated ecological disruption leading to resistant organism selection.

Conclusions: Recognition of second-order effects enables proactive mitigation strategies, improving patient outcomes while maintaining therapeutic efficacy.

Keywords: Critical care, unintended consequences, hyperoxia, fluid overload, antibiotic resistance, iatrogenic complications

Introduction

Sir Isaac Newton's third law of motion—for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction—finds profound relevance in the modern intensive care unit. While critically ill patients require aggressive interventions to prevent imminent death, these same treatments often trigger complex pathophysiological responses that can ultimately compromise patient outcomes. This paradox represents the law of unintended consequences in critical care: well-intentioned therapies that solve immediate problems while creating new, sometimes more complex challenges.¹

The intensivist faces a unique dilemma. Unlike other medical specialties where interventions can be titrated gradually, critical care demands rapid, high-stakes decisions with profound physiological impact. Yet this urgency can obscure the subtle but significant second-order effects that emerge hours to days after initial treatment.²

This review examines three paradigmatic examples of unintended consequences in critical care: the oxygen toxicity paradox, the fluid overload cascade, and antibiotic collateral damage. Understanding these phenomena enables clinicians to anticipate complications, implement mitigation strategies, and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

The Oxygen Toxicity Paradox

The Seductive Simplicity of SpO₂

Pulse oximetry represents one of medicine's greatest monitoring advances, providing continuous, non-invasive assessment of arterial oxygen saturation. However, this technological triumph has inadvertently promoted a reductionist approach to oxygenation management. The ubiquitous SpO₂ display creates what behavioral economists term "metric fixation"—the tendency to optimize a visible number rather than the underlying physiological process it represents.³

Pearl: SpO₂ >94% does not equal optimal oxygen delivery. The oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve plateau means that FiO₂ increases beyond this threshold provide minimal saturation improvement while dramatically increasing dissolved oxygen and oxidative stress.

Cellular Mechanisms of Hyperoxic Injury

Normobaric hyperoxia (FiO₂ >0.60) triggers a cascade of cellular damage through reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation. Mitochondrial complex I and III become overwhelmed, leading to superoxide radical production that exceeds endogenous antioxidant capacity.⁴ The consequences are multisystem:

Pulmonary Effects:

  • Alveolar epithelial cell apoptosis within 6-12 hours⁵
  • Surfactant protein degradation and atelectasis promotion
  • Ventilator-induced lung injury amplification through synergistic inflammatory pathways⁶

Cardiovascular Effects:

  • Coronary vasoconstriction reducing myocardial oxygen delivery despite increased arterial content⁷
  • Endothelial dysfunction and nitric oxide pathway inhibition⁸
  • Paradoxical tissue hypoxia in watershed regions

Neurological Effects:

  • Blood-brain barrier disruption and cerebral edema exacerbation⁹
  • Seizure threshold reduction in vulnerable populations¹⁰

Evidence from Clinical Trials

The ICU-ROX trial randomized 1,000 mechanically ventilated patients to conservative (SpO₂ 90-97%) versus liberal (SpO₂ ≥96%) oxygen targets. The conservative group demonstrated reduced ventilator-free days and a trend toward decreased mortality.¹¹ Similarly, the OXYGEN-ICU trial showed increased mortality with high-normal PaO₂ targets (100-150 mmHg) compared to lower targets (70-100 mmHg).¹²

Oyster: The "more is better" mentality persists despite mounting evidence. A 2023 observational study found that 68% of ICU patients experienced hyperoxia (PaO₂ >120 mmHg) during their first 24 hours, with each hour of exposure increasing odds of hospital mortality by 1.04.¹³

Practical Implementation Strategies

The "Oxygen Prescription" Approach:

  1. Target Setting: Aim for SpO₂ 92-96% in most patients (88-92% in COPD)
  2. Weaning Protocols: Systematic FiO₂ reduction every 2-4 hours when SpO₂ >94%
  3. Monitoring Beyond SpO₂: Regular arterial blood gas analysis to assess PaO₂ and lactate trends
  4. Team Education: Respiratory therapist-driven protocols with physician oversight

Hack: Use the "Rule of 5s" for FiO₂ weaning: If SpO₂ >95%, reduce FiO₂ by 0.05 every 15 minutes until SpO₂ reaches 92-94%. This prevents the common practice of leaving patients on unnecessarily high oxygen concentrations.

The Fluid Overload Cascade

From Resuscitation to Complication

Fluid resuscitation represents a cornerstone of critical care, yet the transition from therapeutic necessity to iatrogenic complication often occurs imperceptibly. The Starling equation governs fluid movement across capillaries, but critical illness fundamentally alters this relationship through capillary leak, altered oncotic pressure, and lymphatic dysfunction.¹⁴

The Pathophysiological Cascade

Stage 1: Rescue (0-6 hours) Initial fluid administration addresses hypoperfusion and maintains organ perfusion pressure. The Frank-Starling mechanism improves cardiac output, and patients demonstrate clinical improvement.

Stage 2: Optimization (6-24 hours) Continued fluid administration yields diminishing returns. The flat portion of the Frank-Starling curve means additional volume increases preload without improving stroke volume, while capillary leak begins redistributing fluid to the interstitium.¹⁵

Stage 3: De-escalation Failure (24-72 hours) Persistent positive fluid balance creates a self-perpetuating cycle:

  • Interstitial edema → lymphatic compression → reduced lymphatic drainage
  • Tissue edema → increased diffusion distance → cellular hypoxia
  • Abdominal distension → increased intra-abdominal pressure → organ dysfunction¹⁶

Intra-Abdominal Hypertension: The Hidden Epidemic

Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH), defined as sustained intra-abdominal pressure ≥12 mmHg, affects 50-80% of critically ill patients receiving fluid resuscitation.¹⁷ The progression to abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) represents the extreme manifestation of fluid overload consequences.

Organ-Specific Effects:

  • Renal: Decreased renal perfusion pressure, increased renovascular resistance, and acute kidney injury progression¹⁸
  • Pulmonary: Elevated diaphragm reducing functional residual capacity, increased peak pressures, and ventilation-perfusion mismatch¹⁹
  • Cardiovascular: Decreased venous return despite elevated central venous pressure, reduced cardiac output, and hypotension²⁰
  • Gastrointestinal: Decreased splanchnic perfusion, bacterial translocation, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome initiation²¹

Clinical Evidence and Outcomes

The FACTT trial demonstrated that conservative fluid management after initial resuscitation improved oxygenation and reduced ICU length of stay without increasing non-pulmonary organ failure.²² Subsequent analyses showed that each 1L of positive fluid balance on ICU day 3 increased odds of death by 11%.²³

The CLASSIC trial reinforced these findings, showing that restrictive fluid therapy in ICU patients reduced mortality (42.3% vs 48.4%) and increased days alive without life support.²⁴

Pearl: The "dry lung, happy lung" principle extends beyond ARDS. Even in non-pulmonary pathology, avoiding fluid overload improves outcomes through reduced IAH, improved renal function, and decreased inflammatory mediator washout.

Monitoring and Prevention Strategies

Dynamic Fluid Responsiveness Assessment:

  • Passive leg raise test: >10% stroke volume increase predicts fluid responsiveness²⁵
  • Pulse pressure variation: >13% in mechanically ventilated patients indicates preload dependence²⁶
  • Inferior vena cava collapsibility: >18% collapse with inspiration suggests volume responsiveness²⁷

The "ROSE" Protocol for Fluid Management:

  • Resuscitation: Rapid fluid administration for shock reversal
  • Optimization: Goal-directed therapy using dynamic parameters
  • Stabilization: Neutral to negative fluid balance maintenance
  • Evacuation: Active fluid removal when clinically appropriate²⁸

Hack: Implement "Fluid Rounds" twice daily, separately from traditional rounds. Review fluid balance, reassess need for maintenance fluids, and consider diuretic initiation when appropriate. This prevents the "fluid creep" phenomenon where multiple small decisions result in significant positive balance.

Antibiotic Collateral Damage

The Ecological Fallacy of Targeted Therapy

Antibiotics represent both triumph and tragedy in critical care medicine. While life-saving for bacterial infections, their use inevitably disrupts the human microbiome—a complex ecosystem containing over 1,000 species and 3 million genes that regulate immunity, metabolism, and pathogen resistance.²⁹

Mechanisms of Microbiome Disruption

Taxonomic Shifts: Broad-spectrum antibiotics reduce microbial diversity within 24-48 hours, with effects persisting for months after discontinuation. Bacteroides and Bifidobacterium populations collapse, while potentially pathogenic Enterococcus and Enterobacter species expand.³⁰

Functional Consequences:

  • Loss of colonization resistance against pathogens³¹
  • Reduced short-chain fatty acid production, compromising epithelial barrier function³²
  • Altered bile acid metabolism affecting immune signaling³³
  • Decreased production of antimicrobial peptides³⁴

Clostridioides difficile: The Poster Child of Unintended Consequences

C. difficile infection (CDI) exemplifies antibiotic collateral damage. Every antibiotic class increases CDI risk, with cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, and clindamycin carrying highest risk.³⁵ The pathogenesis involves:

  1. Microbiome Disruption: Loss of colonization resistance
  2. Spore Ingestion: Environmental acquisition of C. difficile spores
  3. Germination: Altered bile acid profiles promote spore germination
  4. Toxin Production: Toxins A and B cause inflammatory colitis
  5. Transmission: Spore shedding perpetuates healthcare-associated spread³⁶

Oyster: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) synergistically increase CDI risk when combined with antibiotics. The mechanism involves altered gastric pH affecting spore survival and microbiome composition changes. Yet ICU stress ulcer prophylaxis protocols often mandate PPI use, creating a perfect storm for CDI development.³⁷

Multi-Drug Resistant Organism Selection

Antibiotic pressure selects for resistant organisms through multiple mechanisms:

Genetic Selection:

  • Pre-existing resistant subpopulations expand when susceptible organisms are eliminated
  • Horizontal gene transfer accelerates resistance spread
  • Biofilm formation provides sanctuary sites for resistant organisms³⁸

Ecological Selection:

  • Antibiotic-resistant organisms colonize niches vacated by susceptible flora
  • Cross-resistance mechanisms confer multidrug resistance patterns
  • Persistent antibiotic exposure maintains selection pressure³⁹

Fungal Superinfection: The Hidden Threat

Broad-spectrum antibiotics eliminate bacterial competitors, creating ecological niches for fungal overgrowth. Candida species colonization increases from 20% to 70% during ICU stays, with 5-15% developing invasive candidiasis.⁴⁰

Risk Stratification for Invasive Candidiasis:

  • Candida colonization index >0.5 (colonization at ≥2 sites)⁴¹
  • Recent broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure
  • Central venous catheter presence
  • Total parenteral nutrition
  • Immunosuppression or corticosteroid use⁴²

Evidence-Based Mitigation Strategies

Antibiotic Stewardship Interventions:

  1. Procalcitonin-Guided Therapy: Reduces antibiotic duration without increasing mortality. Meta-analyses show 20-25% reduction in antibiotic exposure.⁴³

  2. Rapid Diagnostic Testing: PCR-based pathogen identification and resistance detection reduce time to optimal therapy and enable earlier de-escalation.⁴⁴

  3. Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Optimization: Proper dosing reduces resistance selection while maintaining efficacy. Extended-infusion beta-lactams improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients.⁴⁵

The "START Smart, Then Focus" Protocol:

  • Select appropriate empirical therapy based on local epidemiology
  • Take cultures before antibiotic administration
  • Assess response at 48-72 hours
  • Review and adjust based on culture results
  • Target therapy to identified pathogens and stop unnecessary antibiotics⁴⁶

Pearl: The "Antibiotic Time-Out" at 48-72 hours forces reassessment of necessity, spectrum, and duration. This simple intervention reduces antibiotic days by 20-30% without increasing adverse outcomes.⁴⁷

Hack: Implement "Bugs and Drugs" rounds with infectious disease consultation integrated into daily workflow. Real-time stewardship intervention is more effective than retrospective review, reducing antibiotic duration and resistance emergence.⁴⁸

Synthesis: A Framework for Anticipating Unintended Consequences

The Second-Order Thinking Model

Critical care clinicians must develop "second-order thinking"—the ability to consider not just immediate effects of interventions, but also the consequences of those consequences.⁴⁹ This framework involves:

  1. Primary Effect Analysis: What is the intended therapeutic goal?
  2. Secondary Effect Prediction: What systems might be affected by achieving this goal?
  3. Temporal Consideration: When might secondary effects manifest?
  4. Risk-Benefit Recalibration: Does the intervention remain justified considering potential unintended consequences?

The "STOP and THINK" Mnemonic

Before implementing any intervention, consider:

  • System effects: How might this affect multiple organ systems?

  • Temporal dynamics: What are the short- and long-term consequences?

  • Opportunity costs: What alternatives exist with different risk profiles?

  • Patient factors: Individual characteristics that modify risk?

  • Threshold effects: Are there dose-response relationships?

  • Homeostatic disruption: How might this alter physiological balance?

  • Iatrogenic potential: Could this intervention cause harm?

  • Net benefit: Does benefit outweigh total risk including unintended consequences?

  • Knowledge gaps: What don't we know about this intervention's effects?

Technology Integration for Mitigation

Clinical Decision Support Systems: Real-time alerts for hyperoxia, positive fluid balance, and antibiotic duration can prompt reassessment and intervention modification.⁵⁰

Predictive Analytics: Machine learning models incorporating multiple variables can predict risks of CDI, acute kidney injury, and other complications before clinical manifestation.⁵¹

Automated Protocols: Oxygen weaning, fluid balance monitoring, and antibiotic stewardship protocols can be integrated into electronic health records to ensure consistent application.⁵²

Conclusions and Future Directions

The law of unintended consequences in critical care represents a fundamental challenge requiring systematic approaches to anticipation and mitigation. Three key principles emerge:

  1. Complexity Awareness: Critical illness involves interconnected systems where interventions have cascading effects
  2. Temporal Vigilance: Adverse consequences often manifest after initial therapeutic success
  3. Continuous Reassessment: Regular evaluation of intervention necessity and modification based on changing clinical status

Future research should focus on developing predictive models for unintended consequences, validating standardized protocols for mitigation, and investigating novel interventions with improved risk-benefit profiles.

The ultimate goal is not to avoid all interventions due to potential complications, but to practice "intelligent intensivism"—aggressive when necessary, but always mindful of the complex web of consequences that follow our actions. As the complexity of critical care continues to increase, our ability to anticipate and mitigate unintended consequences will increasingly determine patient outcomes.

Final Pearl: The best intensivists are not those who can implement the most interventions, but those who can anticipate which interventions will ultimately benefit their patients. Sometimes the most difficult decision is knowing when not to act.

References

  1. Shojania KG, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Identifying adverse events: reflections on an imperfect science after two decades of research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(4):262-270.

  2. Vincent JL, Creteur J. Paradigm shifts in critical care medicine: the progress we have made. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):1-8.

  3. Girardis M, Busani S, Damiani E, et al. Effect of conservative vs conventional oxygen therapy on mortality among patients in an intensive care unit: the OXYGEN-ICU randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(15):1583-1589.

  4. Kallet RH, Matthay MA. Hyperoxic acute lung injury. Respir Care. 2013;58(1):123-141.

  5. Altemeier WA, Sinclair SE. Hyperoxia in the intensive care unit: why more is not always better. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2007;13(1):73-78.

  6. Silva PL, Pelosi P, Rocco PR. Personalized pharmacological therapy for ARDS: a light at the end of the tunnel. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2020;29(1):49-61.

  7. Stub D, Smith K, Bernard S, et al. Air versus oxygen in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2015;131(24):2143-2150.

  8. Kilgannon JH, Jones AE, Shapiro NI, et al. Association between arterial hyperoxia following resuscitation from cardiac arrest and in-hospital mortality. JAMA. 2010;303(21):2165-2171.

  9. Rincon F, Kang J, Maltenfort M, et al. Association between hyperoxia and mortality after stroke: a multicenter cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(2):387-396.

  10. Davis DP, Meade W, Sise MJ, et al. Both hypoxemia and extreme hyperoxemia may be detrimental in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2009;26(12):2217-2223.

  11. Mackle D, Bellomo R, Bailey M, et al. Conservative oxygen therapy during mechanical ventilation in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(11):989-998.

  12. Girardis M, Busani S, Damiani E, et al. Effect of conservative vs conventional oxygen therapy on mortality among patients in an intensive care unit: the OXYGEN-ICU randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(15):1583-1589.

  13. Palmer E, Post B, Klapaukh R, et al. The association between supraphysiologic arterial oxygen levels and mortality in critically ill patients: a multicenter observational cohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(11):1373-1380.

  14. Malbrain ML, Marik PE, Witters I, et al. Fluid overload, de-resuscitation, and outcomes in critically ill or injured patients: a systematic review with suggestions for clinical practice. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2014;46(5):361-380.

  15. Acheampong A, Vincent JL. A positive fluid balance is an independent prognostic factor in patients with sepsis. Crit Care. 2015;19:251.

  16. Kirkpatrick AW, Roberts DJ, De Waele J, et al. Intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome: updated consensus definitions and clinical practice guidelines. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(7):1190-1206.

  17. Reintam Blaser A, Regli A, De Keulenaer B, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of intra-abdominal hypertension in critically ill patients—a prospective multicenter study (IROI study). Crit Care Med. 2019;47(4):535-542.

  18. Dabrowski W, Rzecki Z, Pilch J, et al. The early recognition of acute kidney injury in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(5):968-969.

  19. Pelosi P, Quintel M, Malbrain ML. Effect of intra-abdominal pressure on respiratory mechanics. Acta Clin Belg. 2007;62(Suppl 1):78-88.

  20. Cheatham ML, Malbrain ML. Cardiovascular implications of abdominal compartment syndrome. Acta Clin Belg. 2007;62(Suppl 1):98-112.

  21. Diebel LN, Dulchavsky SA, Brown WJ. Splanchnic ischemia and bacterial translocation in the abdominal compartment syndrome. J Trauma. 1997;43(5):852-855.

  22. Wiedemann HP, Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, et al. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(24):2564-2575.

  23. Rosenberg AL, Dechert RE, Park PK, et al. Association of cumulative fluid balance on outcome in acute lung injury: a retrospective cohort study. J Crit Care. 2009;24(3):394-400.

  24. Meyhoff TS, Hjortrup PB, Wetterslev J, et al. Restriction of intravenous fluid in ICU patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(26):2459-2470.

  25. Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(12):1935-1947.

  26. Yang X, Du B. Does pulse pressure variation predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):650.

  27. Zhang Z, Xu X, Ye S, et al. Ultrasonographic measurement of the respiratory variation in the inferior vena cava diameter is predictive of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(4):845-851.

  28. Malbrain ML, Van Regenmortel N, Saugel B, et al. Principles of fluid management and stewardship in septic shock: it is time to consider the four D's and the four phases of fluid therapy. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):66.

  29. Lynch SV, Pedersen O. The human intestinal microbiome in health and disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(24):2369-2379.

  30. Jernberg C, Löfmark S, Edlund C, et al. Long-term impacts of antibiotic exposure on the human intestinal microbiota. Microbiology. 2010;156(Pt 11):3216-3223.

  31. Buffie CG, Pamer EG. Microbiota-mediated colonization resistance against intestinal pathogens. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13(11):790-801.

  32. Koh A, De Vadder F, Kovatcheva-Datchary P, et al. From dietary fiber to host physiology: short-chain fatty acids as key bacterial metabolites. Cell. 2016;165(6):1332-1345.

  33. Wahlström A, Sayin SI, Marschall HU, et al. Intestinal crosstalk between bile acids and microbiota and its impact on host metabolism. Cell Metab. 2016;24(1):41-50.

  34. Vaishnava S, Yamamoto M, Severson KM, et al. The antibacterial lectin RegIIIγ promotes the spatial segregation of microbiota and host in the intestine. Science. 2011;334(6053):255-258.

  35. Brown KA, Khanafer N, Daneman N, et al. Meta-analysis of antibiotics and the risk of community-associated Clostridium difficile infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(5):2326-2332.

  36. Lessa FC, Mu Y, Bamberg WM, et al. Burden of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):825-834.

  37. Howell MD, Novack V, Grgurich P, et al. Iatrogenic gastric acid suppression and the risk of nosocomial Clostridium difficile infection. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(9):784-790.

  38. Davies J, Davies D. Origins and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2010;74(3):417-433.

  39. Laxminarayan R, Duse A, Wattal C, et al. Antibiotic resistance—the need for global solutions. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(12):1057-1098.

  40. Bassetti M, Merelli M, Righi E, et al. Epidemiology, species distribution, antifungal susceptibility, and outcome of candidemia across five sites in Italy and Spain. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51(12):4167-4172.

  41. Pittet D, Monod M, Suter PM, et al. Candida colonization and subsequent infections in critically ill surgical patients. Ann Surg. 1994;220(6):751-758.

  42. León C, Ruiz-Santana S, Saavedra P, et al. A bedside scoring system ("Candida score") for early antifungal treatment in nonneutropenic critically ill patients with Candida colonization. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(3):730-737.

  43. Schuetz P, Wirz Y, Sager R, et al. Procalcitonin to initiate or discontinue antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;10(10):CD007498.

  44. Timbrook TT, Morton JB, McConeghy KW, et al. The effect of molecular rapid diagnostic testing on clinical outcomes in bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64(1):15-23.

  45. Rhodes NJ, Liu J, O'Donnell JN, et al. Prolonged infusion piperacillin-tazobactam decreases mortality and improves outcomes in severely ill patients: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(2):236-243.

  46. Ashiru-Oredope D, Sharland M, Charani E, et al. Improving the quality of antibiotic prescribing in the NHS by developing a new Antimicrobial Stewardship Programme: Start Smart—Then Focus. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(Suppl 1):i51-63.

  47. Davey P, Marwick CA, Scott CL, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2(2):CD003543.

  48. Schweitzer VA, van Heijl I, Levin AS, et al. The quality of studies evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions: a systematic review. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25(5):555-561.

  49. Farnam A, Fung A, Vieira DA, et al. Second-order thinking in critical care. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(8):1317-1325.

  50. Slight SP, Seger DL, Nanji KC, et al. Are we heeding the warning signs? Examining providers' overrides of computerized drug-drug interaction alerts in primary care. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e85071.

  51. Churpek MM, Yuen TC, Winslow C, et al. Multicenter comparison of machine learning methods and conventional regression for predicting clinical deterioration on the wards. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(2):368-374.

  52. Blackford M, Street M, Lazure L, et al. Implementation of a real-time automated clinical deterioration alert system on a medical progressive care unit. J Nurs Care Qual. 2019;34(4):308-314.

at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Biomarker-based Assessment for Predicting Sepsis-induced Coagulopathy and Outcomes in Intensive Care

  Biomarker-based Assessment for Predicting Sepsis-induced Coagulopathy and Outcomes in Intensive Care Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai Abstr...