The "Social" ICU Admission: Boarder in the ED vs. Inappropriate ICU Stay - A Critical Analysis of Resource Allocation and Patient Safety

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: The phenomenon of "social" ICU admissions represents a complex intersection of patient safety, resource allocation, and healthcare system limitations. These admissions occur when patients lack traditional critical care indications but require intensive monitoring or specialized nursing ratios unavailable on general wards.

Objective: To critically examine the clinical, ethical, and operational considerations surrounding social ICU admissions, providing evidence-based guidance for critical care practitioners navigating these challenging scenarios.

Methods: Comprehensive review of literature from 2010-2024, analysis of healthcare system models, and synthesis of expert opinion on ICU admission criteria and resource allocation.

Conclusions: Social ICU admissions reflect systemic healthcare gaps rather than clinical failures. Optimal management requires structured decision-making frameworks, alternative care models, and institutional policy development that balances individual patient needs with population-level resource stewardship.

Keywords: ICU admission criteria, resource allocation, healthcare systems, patient safety, critical care nursing

Introduction

The modern intensive care unit (ICU) serves as the apex of acute medical care, traditionally reserved for patients requiring life-sustaining interventions, continuous monitoring, or specialized expertise for organ failure management. However, contemporary critical care practitioners increasingly encounter a challenging clinical scenario: the "social" ICU admission. These patients occupy a nebulous clinical space—not critically ill by traditional metrics, yet unable to receive appropriate care on general medical floors due to nursing requirements, monitoring needs, or behavioral considerations.

This phenomenon has intensified amid growing healthcare demands, nursing shortages, and increasingly complex patient presentations. The decision to admit such patients to the ICU creates a fundamental tension between individual patient safety and population-level resource stewardship, forcing intensivists into uncomfortable territory where clinical judgment intersects with healthcare economics and system limitations.

Defining the "Social" ICU Admission

Clinical Characteristics

The "social" ICU admission encompasses several distinct patient populations:

1. High-Risk Monitoring Patients

Post-procedural patients requiring frequent neurological assessments
Patients with high fall risk requiring 1:1 observation
Those needing specialized monitoring unavailable on general wards
Patients with multiple comorbidities at risk for rapid decompensation

2. Behavioral and Psychiatric Presentations

Agitated or confused patients requiring specialized nursing ratios
Patients with active suicidal ideation lacking psychiatric bed availability
Substance withdrawal requiring intensive monitoring
Patients with cognitive impairment and high elopement risk

3. Complex Medical Management

Patients requiring frequent medication titration or monitoring
Those needing specialized interventions unavailable on general floors
Patients with complex wound care or specialized equipment needs

Pearl #1: The "Social" Label Misnomer

The term "social admission" is fundamentally misleading. These patients have legitimate medical needs that current healthcare infrastructure cannot adequately address outside the ICU. Reframing these as "system-gap admissions" better reflects the underlying problem while reducing stigma.

The Case for ICU Admission: Team Safety Perspective

Patient Safety Framework

Proponents of ICU admission for these patients argue from a patient safety perspective, emphasizing several key principles:

Risk Stratification and Prevention The ICU environment provides unique safety advantages through:

Enhanced nurse-to-patient ratios (typically 1:1 or 1:2 vs. 1:4-6 on general floors)
Continuous monitoring capabilities
Immediate access to advanced life support
Multidisciplinary team availability
Specialized equipment and medication access

Evidence Supporting ICU Admission Research demonstrates that nursing ratios significantly impact patient outcomes. A landmark study by Aiken et al. showed that each additional patient per nurse was associated with a 7% increase in mortality risk within 30 days of admission. For high-risk patients requiring intensive monitoring, the ICU's enhanced staffing model may prevent catastrophic events.

Case Example: Consider a 75-year-old patient with delirium, multiple fall risk factors, and a history of stroke presenting with altered mental status but stable vital signs. While not meeting traditional ICU criteria, placement on a general floor with standard nursing ratios (1:5-6) may result in inadequate monitoring, leading to falls, aspiration, or unrecognized neurological deterioration.

Hack #1: The "Safety Net" Documentation

When admitting patients for primarily safety reasons, document specific safety risks and mitigation strategies required. Use language like "ICU admission for intensive monitoring and specialized nursing ratios to prevent [specific adverse event]" rather than vague social indications.

The Case Against: ICU Resource Protection

Resource Stewardship Arguments

Critics of social ICU admissions raise compelling concerns about resource allocation and opportunity costs:

Delayed Care for Critical Patients

ICU bed shortages may delay admission for patients with clear critical care needs
Emergency department boarding of truly critical patients
Potential for increased mortality among patients awaiting ICU beds

Economic Considerations ICU care costs approximately 2-4 times more than general floor care. Inappropriate utilization contributes to healthcare cost inflation and may limit access for patients with genuine critical care needs.

Staff Burnout and Moral Distress Critical care staff may experience moral distress when caring for patients who don't require their specialized skills while knowing other critically ill patients await admission.

Pearl #2: The "Reverse Triage" Concept

Traditional triage moves the sickest patients to higher levels of care. Social ICU admissions represent "reverse triage"—moving patients to higher care levels for non-medical reasons. This inversion of clinical priorities can create ethical tension for providers.

System Failures and Alternative Solutions

Root Cause Analysis

The social ICU admission phenomenon reflects multiple systemic failures:

Nursing Shortage Crisis

Inadequate nurse-to-patient ratios on general floors
Limited availability of 1:1 sitters or specialized observation staff
Insufficient training for complex patient management on general units

Infrastructure Limitations

Lack of progressive care or step-down units
Absence of dedicated psychiatric observation units
Limited monitoring capabilities outside the ICU

Care Coordination Failures

Poor discharge planning leading to premature returns
Inadequate home care resources
Limited skilled nursing facility availability

Alternative Care Models

Progressive Care Units (PCUs) Intermediate care units with enhanced monitoring and nursing ratios (typically 1:2-3) can bridge the gap between general floors and ICUs. Evidence suggests PCUs can safely manage many patients who might otherwise require ICU admission for monitoring purposes.

Specialized Observation Units Dedicated units for psychiatric patients requiring medical monitoring or high-risk patients needing frequent assessment can provide appropriate care without ICU resources.

Enhanced Floor Care Programs

Rapid response teams with increased presence
Technology-assisted monitoring (telemetry, remote monitoring)
Specialized nursing education and support

Hack #2: The "Admission Criteria Audit"

Regularly review ICU admissions over the past month. Identify patterns of social admissions and work with administration to develop specific alternative pathways for common scenarios.

Clinical Decision-Making Framework

Structured Assessment Tool

When evaluating potential social ICU admissions, consider the following framework:

1. Medical Necessity Assessment

Does the patient require interventions available only in the ICU?
Is continuous monitoring medically indicated?
What is the risk of rapid deterioration requiring immediate intervention?

2. Safety Risk Evaluation

Can identified safety risks be mitigated with available floor resources?
What is the probability and potential severity of adverse events?
Are there viable alternatives to ICU-level observation?

3. Resource Availability Analysis

Are ICU beds available for potentially critical patients?
What are current ED boarding statistics?
Can alternative units provide adequate care?

4. System Capacity Consideration

What alternatives exist within the healthcare system?
Can discharge planning resolve underlying issues?
Are there community resources to support patient needs?

Pearl #3: The "24-Hour Rule"

Establish a policy requiring reassessment of social ICU admissions within 24 hours. Many situations resolve with initial stabilization, allowing safe transfer to lower acuity units.

Ethical Considerations

Competing Principles

The social ICU admission dilemma involves several competing ethical principles:

Individual vs. Population Justice Utilitarianism suggests maximizing overall benefit by reserving ICU resources for those most likely to benefit. However, individual justice demands appropriate care for each patient's specific needs.

Beneficence vs. Non-maleficence Providing ICU-level care may benefit individual patients while potentially harming others who cannot access needed critical care services.

Professional Integrity Intensivists must balance their obligation to individual patients with their broader responsibility to the healthcare system and society.

Oyster #1: The False Dichotomy

The debate often presents ICU admission vs. floor care as binary choices. In reality, creative solutions—enhanced monitoring, specialized nursing, temporary observation units—may better serve patient needs while preserving ICU resources.

Evidence-Based Guidelines

Literature Review Findings

Recent studies provide insight into optimal management strategies:

ICU Admission Criteria Studies Systematic reviews suggest that objective scoring systems (APACHE, SOFA) combined with clinical judgment provide optimal admission decisions. However, these tools poorly predict outcomes for social admissions.

Alternative Care Model Outcomes Research on progressive care units demonstrates equivalent safety outcomes for appropriate patient populations while reducing costs by 30-40% compared to ICU care.

Nursing Ratio Impact Studies Evidence consistently shows that higher nursing ratios improve patient outcomes, particularly for vulnerable populations requiring intensive monitoring.

Hack #3: The "Disposition Huddle"

Implement daily interdisciplinary rounds specifically addressing social ICU patients. Include nursing, social work, case management, and pharmacy to identify barriers to appropriate care transitions.

Practical Management Strategies

Immediate Assessment Protocol

Upon Admission:

Document specific safety concerns and monitoring requirements
Establish clear, measurable goals for ICU stay
Identify barriers to lower-acuity care
Set timeline for reassessment and disposition planning

Daily Management:

Reassess need for ICU-level interventions
Evaluate progress toward discharge goals
Coordinate with case management for alternative placements
Document ongoing ICU necessity

Communication Strategies

Family Education Explain the rationale for ICU placement while setting appropriate expectations for care goals and timeline. Avoid implying the patient is "critically ill" when primarily admitted for safety monitoring.

Team Communication Maintain transparent dialogue about admission rationale with nursing staff, emphasizing safety goals rather than medical complexity.

Pearl #4: The "Clear Exit Strategy"

Every social ICU admission should have a defined exit strategy documented within 6 hours of admission. This includes specific criteria for transfer and identified barriers to achieving those criteria.

Institutional Policy Development

Creating Structured Approaches

Healthcare institutions should develop formal policies addressing social ICU admissions:

Admission Guidelines

Clear criteria for social ICU admissions
Required documentation elements
Approval processes for non-traditional admissions
Time limits and reassessment requirements

Alternative Care Pathways

Progressive care unit utilization
Enhanced floor monitoring protocols
Specialized observation capabilities
Community resource integration

Quality Metrics

Track social admission rates and outcomes
Monitor ICU bed availability and ED boarding
Assess patient satisfaction and safety metrics
Evaluate cost-effectiveness of interventions

Hack #4: The "Social Admission Committee"

Establish a multidisciplinary committee meeting weekly to review social ICU admissions, identify system improvements, and develop alternative care pathways.

Economic Implications

Cost Analysis

The financial impact of social ICU admissions extends beyond direct care costs:

Direct Costs

ICU care: $3,000-5,000 per day vs. $800-1,200 for floor care
Specialized nursing ratios
Enhanced monitoring and equipment

Indirect Costs

Delayed care for critical patients
Emergency department boarding costs
Potential liability from delayed ICU admission for appropriate patients
Staff overtime and burnout-related turnover

Cost-Benefit Considerations While ICU care is expensive, preventing catastrophic events (falls, aspiration, suicide attempts) may ultimately reduce total healthcare costs through avoided complications and legal liability.

Oyster #2: The Hidden Savings

Social ICU admissions, while expensive, may prevent costlier complications. A prevented fall with hip fracture saves $30,000-50,000 in additional healthcare costs—potentially justifying several days of ICU care from a purely economic perspective.

Technology and Innovation Solutions

Emerging Technologies

Several technological innovations may address social ICU admission challenges:

Remote Monitoring Systems

Wearable devices providing continuous vital sign monitoring
AI-powered early warning systems
Telemedicine consultation capabilities

Staffing Solutions

Mobile nurse specialists for high-acuity floor patients
Technology-assisted monitoring reducing nursing burden
Predictive analytics for patient deterioration risk

Alternative Care Models

Virtual ICU programs providing remote monitoring
Rapid response team enhancement
Specialized transport teams for inter-unit transfers

Hack #5: The "Tech-Enhanced Floor"

Advocate for technology investments that enhance general floor monitoring capabilities: continuous pulse oximetry, automated early warning systems, and remote monitoring capabilities can reduce the need for ICU-level observation.

International Perspectives

Global Approaches

Different healthcare systems have developed varied approaches to this challenge:

European Models Many European systems utilize intermediate care units more extensively, reducing pressure on ICUs for social admissions. The UK's High Dependency Units (HDUs) provide a model for enhanced monitoring without full critical care resources.

Canadian System Canada's universal healthcare system has developed comprehensive step-down unit networks, though still faces challenges with psychiatric patients requiring medical monitoring.

Australian Approach Australia has implemented comprehensive clinical criteria for ICU admission, with strong alternative care pathways and regular auditing of admission appropriateness.

Pearl #5: Learning from Systems Abroad

Countries with lower ICU bed ratios often develop superior alternative care models out of necessity. These innovations can inform solutions even in resource-rich environments.

Legal and Liability Considerations

Medicolegal Framework

Social ICU admissions raise important legal considerations:

Standard of Care Courts generally recognize that healthcare decisions must consider available resources and alternatives. However, providers must document clear rationale for care decisions.

Documentation Requirements

Clear articulation of safety risks
Evidence of consideration of alternatives
Regular reassessment of continued need
Consultation notes when appropriate

Risk Management

Standardized admission criteria reduce liability exposure
Clear policies protect individual practitioners
Regular audit and review processes demonstrate quality improvement efforts

Hack #6: The "Defensible Decision" Documentation

For every social ICU admission, document: (1) specific safety concerns, (2) alternatives considered and why inadequate, (3) expected timeline for resolution, and (4) plan for reassessment. This creates a defensible medical record.

Outcomes and Quality Metrics

Measuring Success

Appropriate metrics for evaluating social ICU admission practices include:

Patient Safety Metrics

Adverse event rates (falls, medication errors, self-harm)
Length of stay and readmission rates
Patient and family satisfaction scores
Mortality and morbidity outcomes

System Performance Indicators

ICU bed availability and utilization rates
Emergency department boarding times
Transfer delays for critical patients
Cost per case and resource utilization

Quality Improvement Measures

Alternative care pathway development
Staff satisfaction and turnover rates
System-wide capacity utilization
Patient flow efficiency metrics

Pearl #6: The Outcome Paradox

Successful social ICU admissions often appear "unnecessary" in retrospect because adverse events were prevented. Track near-miss events and safety interventions to demonstrate value.

Special Populations

Psychiatric Patients with Medical Comorbidities

This population represents a particularly challenging subset:

Assessment Considerations

Medical stability vs. psychiatric acuity
Capacity for informed consent
Safety risks to self and others
Medication compliance and monitoring needs

Management Strategies

Early psychiatric consultation
Coordinated medical-psychiatric care plans
Family involvement when appropriate
Clear criteria for transfer to psychiatric facilities

Elderly Patients with Cognitive Impairment

Unique Challenges

High fall risk and injury potential
Complex medication regimens
Family dynamics and decision-making
End-of-life care considerations

Specialized Approaches

Geriatric consultation for complex cases
Family meetings for care planning
Consideration of palliative care principles
Environmental modifications for safety

Oyster #3: Age and Bias

Be aware of ageism in ICU admission decisions. Elderly patients may be inappropriately labeled as "social" admissions when they have legitimate medical needs requiring intensive monitoring.

Communication and Team Dynamics

Managing Team Concerns

Social ICU admissions can create tension among healthcare teams:

Addressing Staff Concerns

Acknowledge the difficulty of these decisions
Explain rationale for admission clearly
Discuss alternative options considered
Set realistic expectations for outcomes

Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Include nursing input in admission decisions
Engage social work and case management early
Coordinate with psychiatry when appropriate
Involve administration in policy development

Hack #7: The "Team Huddle" Approach

When admitting a social ICU patient, immediately huddle with nursing staff to explain rationale, set expectations, and discuss safety protocols. This prevents frustration and ensures optimal care delivery.

Future Directions and Solutions

System-Level Innovations

Enhanced Alternative Care Models

Rapid expansion of progressive care units
Development of specialized observation units
Mobile critical care teams for floor patients
Technology-enhanced monitoring capabilities

Policy and Advocacy

Healthcare system reform addressing capacity limitations
Nursing workforce development and retention
Technology investment for enhanced monitoring
Alternative payment models supporting intermediate care

Research Priorities

Outcomes studies for alternative care models
Cost-effectiveness analyses of social ICU admissions
Development of validated risk assessment tools
Investigation of technology solutions for enhanced monitoring

Pearl #7: The Advocacy Role

Critical care physicians should advocate for system changes rather than simply accepting social ICU admissions as inevitable. Engage with hospital administration, nursing leadership, and policy makers to develop better solutions.

Practical Recommendations

For Individual Practitioners

1. Develop Clear Admission Criteria Establish institution-specific guidelines for social ICU admissions with clear documentation requirements and reassessment protocols.

2. Enhance Communication Skills Develop expertise in explaining complex admission decisions to families, nursing staff, and colleagues while maintaining professional relationships.

3. Advocate for System Changes Work with institutional leadership to develop alternative care models and address underlying system limitations.

For Healthcare Systems

1. Invest in Alternative Care Models Develop progressive care units, specialized observation capabilities, and enhanced floor monitoring to reduce inappropriate ICU utilization.

2. Address Nursing Workforce Issues Implement retention strategies, competitive compensation, and educational support to maintain adequate nursing ratios across all care areas.

3. Implement Technology Solutions Invest in remote monitoring, early warning systems, and communication technologies that enhance safety without requiring ICU admission.

Hack #8: The "Social ICU Dashboard"

Create a real-time dashboard tracking social ICU admissions, available alternatives, and bed capacity to support evidence-based decision making during busy periods.

Case Studies and Clinical Vignettes

Case 1: The Agitated Patient

Scenario: 45-year-old male with alcohol withdrawal, medically stable but requiring frequent sedation monitoring and 1:1 observation due to agitation.

Analysis: Traditional floor care cannot provide necessary monitoring for sedation titration and behavioral management. ICU admission appropriate pending psychiatric bed availability or clinical stabilization.

Alternative Approach: Enhanced monitoring unit with specialized nursing training in withdrawal management could provide equivalent care.

Case 2: The High-Fall-Risk Patient

Scenario: 80-year-old female with dementia, recent hip fracture repair, requiring pain management and frequent reorientation, extremely high fall risk.

Analysis: While medically stable, fall risk and complex pain management needs exceed floor nursing capacity. ICU provides necessary safety monitoring.

Alternative Approach: Dedicated geriatric unit with enhanced fall prevention protocols and specialized nursing ratios could meet patient needs more appropriately.

Oyster #4: The Disposition Challenge

Sometimes the "social" aspect isn't the admission decision but the inability to discharge. Patients may legitimately require ICU care initially but then face barriers to appropriate step-down due to system limitations.

Quality Improvement Strategies

Systematic Approach to Reduction

Data Collection and Analysis

Track social admission rates and patterns
Identify common scenarios and system gaps
Monitor outcomes and adverse events
Analyze cost and resource utilization

Process Improvement Initiatives

Develop standardized assessment tools
Create alternative care pathways
Implement early warning systems
Enhance communication protocols

Outcome Measurement

Patient safety metrics
Staff satisfaction scores
Resource utilization efficiency
Cost-effectiveness analysis

Hack #9: The "Monthly Review"

Institute monthly reviews of all social ICU admissions with multidisciplinary teams to identify patterns, develop solutions, and track improvement over time.

Training and Education

Preparing Future Intensivists

Curriculum Development

Include healthcare economics in critical care training
Teach resource allocation decision-making
Develop communication skills for difficult conversations
Emphasize systems thinking and advocacy

Simulation Training

Practice scenarios involving social admission decisions
Develop skills in team communication and conflict resolution
Train in alternative assessment and monitoring techniques

Pearl #8: The Teaching Opportunity

Social ICU admissions provide excellent teaching opportunities about healthcare systems, resource allocation, and the complexity of modern medical decision-making. Use these cases to educate trainees about broader healthcare challenges.

Research Gaps and Future Studies

Priority Research Questions

1. Outcome Studies

Comparative effectiveness of ICU vs. alternative care for social admission populations
Long-term outcomes and quality of life measures
Cost-effectiveness analyses across different care models

2. Risk Prediction

Development of validated tools for identifying patients requiring intensive monitoring
Predictive models for patient deterioration risk
Technology-assisted risk assessment

3. System Design

Optimal staffing models for alternative care units
Technology solutions for enhanced monitoring
Policy interventions to address system gaps

Hack #10: The "Research Collaboration"

Partner with health services researchers to study your institution's social ICU admission patterns and outcomes. This can provide data to support system improvements and policy changes.

Conclusions

The phenomenon of social ICU admissions represents a complex intersection of patient safety, resource allocation, and healthcare system limitations. Rather than viewing these admissions as simply appropriate or inappropriate, critical care practitioners must recognize them as symptoms of broader systemic challenges requiring innovative solutions.

The evidence suggests that while social ICU admissions may be necessary in current healthcare environments, they represent suboptimal resource utilization that could be addressed through system-level interventions. The development of alternative care models—progressive care units, specialized observation units, and technology-enhanced monitoring—offers promise for better matching patient needs with appropriate resources.

Moving forward, the critical care community must advocate for systemic changes while continuing to provide optimal care for individual patients within current constraints. This includes developing clear admission criteria, enhancing alternative care options, and implementing quality improvement processes that address root causes rather than simply managing symptoms.

The ultimate goal should be creating healthcare systems where patient safety and appropriate resource utilization align, eliminating the false choice between individual patient care and population-level stewardship. Until such systems exist, intensivists must navigate these challenging decisions with wisdom, compassion, and commitment to both individual patients and the broader healthcare mission.

References

Aiken LH, Clarke SP, Sloane DM, et al. Hospital nurse staffing and patient mortality, nurse burnout, and job satisfaction. JAMA. 2002;288(16):1987-1993.
Angus DC, Kelley MA, Schmitz RJ, et al. Current and projected workforce requirements for care of the critically ill and patients with pulmonary disease. JAMA. 2000;284(21):2762-2770.
Bone RC, McElwee NE, Eubanks DH, Gluck EH. Analysis of indications for intensive care unit admission. Clinical efficacy assessment project: American College of Physicians. Chest. 1993;104(6):1806-1811.
Cappellini I, Bambi S, Lucchini A, Mirabella L. Sleep quality and psychological wellbeing in intensive care unit survivors after COVID-19. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2022;69:103177.
Chen LM, Render M, Sales A, et al. Intensive care unit admitting patterns in the Veterans Affairs health care system. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(16):1220-1226.
Durairaj L, Will JG, Torner JC, Doebbeling BN. Prognostic factors for mortality following interhospital transfers to the medical intensive care unit of a tertiary referral center. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(7):1981-1986.
Escher M, Perneger TV, Chevrolet JC. National questionnaire survey on what influences doctors' decisions about admission to intensive care. BMJ. 2004;329(7463):425.
Garrouste-Orgeas M, Montuclard L, Timsit JF, et al. Predictors of intensive care unit refusal in French intensive care units: a multiple-center study. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(4):750-755.
Guidelines for intensive care unit admission, discharge, and triage. Task Force of the American College of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med. 1999;27(3):633-638.
Halpern NA, Pastores SM. Critical care medicine in the United States 2000-2005: an analysis of bed numbers, occupancy rates, payer mix, and costs. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(1):65-71.
Iapichino G, Corbella D, Minelli C, et al. Reasons for refusal of admission to intensive care and impact on mortality. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(10):1772-1779.
Joynt GM, Gomersall CD, Tan P, et al. Prospective evaluation of patients refused admission to an intensive care unit: triage, futility and outcome. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27(9):1459-1465.
Kalb T, Raikhelkar J, Meyer S, et al. A multicenter population-based effectiveness study of teleintensive care unit-directed ventilator rounds demonstrating improved adherence to a protective lung strategy, decreased ventilator duration, and decreased ICU mortality. J Crit Care. 2014;29(4):691.e7-14.
Lake ET, Shang J, Klaus S, Dunton NE. Patient falls: association with hospital Magnet status and nursing unit staffing. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33(5):413-425.
Marshall JC, Bosco L, Adhikari NK, et al. What is an intensive care unit? A report of the task force of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine. J Crit Care. 2017;37:270-276.
Metcalfe MA, Sloggett A, McPherson K. Mortality among appropriately referred patients refused admission to intensive-care units. Lancet. 1997;350(9070):7-11.
Needham DM, Bronskill SE, Sibbald WJ, et al. Mechanical ventilation in Ontario, 1992-2000: incidence, survival, and hospital bed utilization of noncardiac surgery adult patients. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(7):1504-1509.
Nguyen YL, Angus DC, Boumendil A, Guidet B. The challenge of admitting the very elderly to intensive care. Ann Intensive Care. 2011;1(1):29.
Sinuff T, Kahnamoui K, Cook DJ, et al. Rationing critical care beds: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(7):1588-1597.
Society of Critical Care Medicine. Guidelines for intensive care unit admission, discharge, and triage. Crit Care Med. 1999;27(3):633-638.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the countless critical care nurses, physicians, and healthcare professionals who navigate these challenging decisions daily while maintaining unwavering commitment to patient safety and quality care.

Wednesday, August 20, 2025