Interventions to promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units: consensus statement and considerations for best practice from a multidisciplinary and multinational eDelphi study
There is limited evidence to guide interventions that promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units (ICU). The aim of this consensus statement is to identify globally applicable interventions for best ICU practice and provide guidance for judicious use of resources. A three-round modified...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Critical care (London, England) England), 2023-12, Vol.27 (1), p.487-487, Article 487 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 487 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 487 |
container_title | Critical care (London, England) |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | Kansal, Amit Latour, Jos M See, Kay Choong Rai, Sumeet Cecconi, Maurizo Britto, Carl Conway Morris, Andrew Dominic Savio, Raymond Nadkarni, Vinay M Rao, B K Mishra, Rajesh |
description | There is limited evidence to guide interventions that promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units (ICU). The aim of this consensus statement is to identify globally applicable interventions for best ICU practice and provide guidance for judicious use of resources.
A three-round modified online Delphi process, using a web-based platform, sought consensus from 61 multidisciplinary ICU experts (physicians, nurses, allied health, administrators) from 21 countries. Round 1 was qualitative to ascertain opinions on cost-effectiveness criteria based on four key domains of high-value healthcare (foundational elements; infrastructure fundamentals; care delivery priorities; reliability and feedback). Round 2 was qualitative and quantitative, while round 3 was quantitative to reiterate and establish criteria. Both rounds 2 and 3 utilized a five-point Likert scale for voting. Consensus was considered when > 70% of the experts voted for a proposed intervention. Thereafter, the steering committee endorsed interventions that were identified as 'critical' by more than 50% of steering committee members. These interventions and experts' comments were summarized as final considerations for best practice.
At the conclusion of round 3, consensus was obtained on 50 best practice considerations for cost-effectiveness in adult ICU. Finally, the steering committee endorsed 9 'critical' best practice considerations. This included adoption of a multidisciplinary ICU model of care, focus on staff training and competency assessment, ongoing quality audits, thus ensuring high quality of critical care services whether within or outside the four walls of ICUs, implementation of a dynamic staff roster, multidisciplinary approach to implementing end-of-life care, early mobilization and promoting international consensus efforts on the Green ICU concept.
This Delphi study with international experts resulted in 9 consensus statements and best practice considerations promoting cost-effectiveness in adult ICUs. Stakeholders (government bodies, professional societies) must lead the efforts to identify locally applicable specifics while working within these best practice considerations with the available resources. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s13054-023-04766-2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10712165</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A776047924</galeid><sourcerecordid>A776047924</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-a8e1ea38b5d480203d65aa3979adf951d939c8fbfdfb638453e61e028a9731ec3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUstu1TAQjRCIlsIPsECW2LBJ8SNxHDaoKq9KldiAxM7ytcetq8S-2E6l_hsfx9zcckURysKj43POzImnaV4yesqYkm8LE7TvWspFS7tBypY_ao5Zh4Wk44_HWAvZtaoX_VHzrJQbStmgpHjaHAlFFReUHze_LmKFfAuxhhQLqYlsc5pTBWJTqS14D7YGvIdSSIjEuGWqWFSIBWFiTQayxFDLO1TEgvBSSKmmwoymxES34sFBNvsePmWygVKxk0FvC8RjS2LIjNbBhWLDdgrR5LtVvaJx1ZqJwAeYttcBOyzu7nnzxJupwIv786T5_unjt_Mv7eXXzxfnZ5et7UZVW6OAgRFq07tOUU6Fk70xYhxG4_zYMzeK0Sq_8c5vpFBdL0AyoFyZcRAMrDhp3u99t8tmBmcxWDaT3uYw45Q6maAf3sRwra_SrWZ0YJzJHh3e3Dvk9HPB8HrGnDBNJkJaiuYj5SMORylSX_9DvUlLxux7FuMDwxc_sK7MBDpEn7Cx3Znqs2GQuA8j75B1-h8Wfg7mgM8CPiD-QMD3AptTKRn8ISSjerd0er90GkfQ69Lp3Syv_v49B8mfLRO_Abrb2Bo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2902127102</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interventions to promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units: consensus statement and considerations for best practice from a multidisciplinary and multinational eDelphi study</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Kansal, Amit ; Latour, Jos M ; See, Kay Choong ; Rai, Sumeet ; Cecconi, Maurizo ; Britto, Carl ; Conway Morris, Andrew ; Dominic Savio, Raymond ; Nadkarni, Vinay M ; Rao, B K ; Mishra, Rajesh</creator><creatorcontrib>Kansal, Amit ; Latour, Jos M ; See, Kay Choong ; Rai, Sumeet ; Cecconi, Maurizo ; Britto, Carl ; Conway Morris, Andrew ; Dominic Savio, Raymond ; Nadkarni, Vinay M ; Rao, B K ; Mishra, Rajesh</creatorcontrib><description>There is limited evidence to guide interventions that promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units (ICU). The aim of this consensus statement is to identify globally applicable interventions for best ICU practice and provide guidance for judicious use of resources.
A three-round modified online Delphi process, using a web-based platform, sought consensus from 61 multidisciplinary ICU experts (physicians, nurses, allied health, administrators) from 21 countries. Round 1 was qualitative to ascertain opinions on cost-effectiveness criteria based on four key domains of high-value healthcare (foundational elements; infrastructure fundamentals; care delivery priorities; reliability and feedback). Round 2 was qualitative and quantitative, while round 3 was quantitative to reiterate and establish criteria. Both rounds 2 and 3 utilized a five-point Likert scale for voting. Consensus was considered when > 70% of the experts voted for a proposed intervention. Thereafter, the steering committee endorsed interventions that were identified as 'critical' by more than 50% of steering committee members. These interventions and experts' comments were summarized as final considerations for best practice.
At the conclusion of round 3, consensus was obtained on 50 best practice considerations for cost-effectiveness in adult ICU. Finally, the steering committee endorsed 9 'critical' best practice considerations. This included adoption of a multidisciplinary ICU model of care, focus on staff training and competency assessment, ongoing quality audits, thus ensuring high quality of critical care services whether within or outside the four walls of ICUs, implementation of a dynamic staff roster, multidisciplinary approach to implementing end-of-life care, early mobilization and promoting international consensus efforts on the Green ICU concept.
This Delphi study with international experts resulted in 9 consensus statements and best practice considerations promoting cost-effectiveness in adult ICUs. Stakeholders (government bodies, professional societies) must lead the efforts to identify locally applicable specifics while working within these best practice considerations with the available resources.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1364-8535</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1466-609X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1364-8535</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1366-609X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04766-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38082302</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Best practices ; Committees ; Cost analysis ; Cost benefit analysis ; Cost control ; Critical care ; Decision making ; Delphi method ; GNI ; Gross National Income ; Health promotion ; Intensive care ; Intensive care units ; Intervention ; Management ; Medical care ; Methods ; Pandemics ; Quality management ; Questionnaires ; Value-based care</subject><ispartof>Critical care (London, England), 2023-12, Vol.27 (1), p.487-487, Article 487</ispartof><rights>2023. The Author(s).</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>2023. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-a8e1ea38b5d480203d65aa3979adf951d939c8fbfdfb638453e61e028a9731ec3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-a8e1ea38b5d480203d65aa3979adf951d939c8fbfdfb638453e61e028a9731ec3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10712165/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10712165/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38082302$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kansal, Amit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Latour, Jos M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>See, Kay Choong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rai, Sumeet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cecconi, Maurizo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Britto, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conway Morris, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dominic Savio, Raymond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nadkarni, Vinay M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rao, B K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mishra, Rajesh</creatorcontrib><title>Interventions to promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units: consensus statement and considerations for best practice from a multidisciplinary and multinational eDelphi study</title><title>Critical care (London, England)</title><addtitle>Crit Care</addtitle><description>There is limited evidence to guide interventions that promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units (ICU). The aim of this consensus statement is to identify globally applicable interventions for best ICU practice and provide guidance for judicious use of resources.
A three-round modified online Delphi process, using a web-based platform, sought consensus from 61 multidisciplinary ICU experts (physicians, nurses, allied health, administrators) from 21 countries. Round 1 was qualitative to ascertain opinions on cost-effectiveness criteria based on four key domains of high-value healthcare (foundational elements; infrastructure fundamentals; care delivery priorities; reliability and feedback). Round 2 was qualitative and quantitative, while round 3 was quantitative to reiterate and establish criteria. Both rounds 2 and 3 utilized a five-point Likert scale for voting. Consensus was considered when > 70% of the experts voted for a proposed intervention. Thereafter, the steering committee endorsed interventions that were identified as 'critical' by more than 50% of steering committee members. These interventions and experts' comments were summarized as final considerations for best practice.
At the conclusion of round 3, consensus was obtained on 50 best practice considerations for cost-effectiveness in adult ICU. Finally, the steering committee endorsed 9 'critical' best practice considerations. This included adoption of a multidisciplinary ICU model of care, focus on staff training and competency assessment, ongoing quality audits, thus ensuring high quality of critical care services whether within or outside the four walls of ICUs, implementation of a dynamic staff roster, multidisciplinary approach to implementing end-of-life care, early mobilization and promoting international consensus efforts on the Green ICU concept.
This Delphi study with international experts resulted in 9 consensus statements and best practice considerations promoting cost-effectiveness in adult ICUs. Stakeholders (government bodies, professional societies) must lead the efforts to identify locally applicable specifics while working within these best practice considerations with the available resources.</description><subject>Best practices</subject><subject>Committees</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Cost control</subject><subject>Critical care</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Delphi method</subject><subject>GNI</subject><subject>Gross National Income</subject><subject>Health promotion</subject><subject>Intensive care</subject><subject>Intensive care units</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Medical care</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Pandemics</subject><subject>Quality management</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Value-based care</subject><issn>1364-8535</issn><issn>1466-609X</issn><issn>1364-8535</issn><issn>1366-609X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNptUstu1TAQjRCIlsIPsECW2LBJ8SNxHDaoKq9KldiAxM7ytcetq8S-2E6l_hsfx9zcckURysKj43POzImnaV4yesqYkm8LE7TvWspFS7tBypY_ao5Zh4Wk44_HWAvZtaoX_VHzrJQbStmgpHjaHAlFFReUHze_LmKFfAuxhhQLqYlsc5pTBWJTqS14D7YGvIdSSIjEuGWqWFSIBWFiTQayxFDLO1TEgvBSSKmmwoymxES34sFBNvsePmWygVKxk0FvC8RjS2LIjNbBhWLDdgrR5LtVvaJx1ZqJwAeYttcBOyzu7nnzxJupwIv786T5_unjt_Mv7eXXzxfnZ5et7UZVW6OAgRFq07tOUU6Fk70xYhxG4_zYMzeK0Sq_8c5vpFBdL0AyoFyZcRAMrDhp3u99t8tmBmcxWDaT3uYw45Q6maAf3sRwra_SrWZ0YJzJHh3e3Dvk9HPB8HrGnDBNJkJaiuYj5SMORylSX_9DvUlLxux7FuMDwxc_sK7MBDpEn7Cx3Znqs2GQuA8j75B1-h8Wfg7mgM8CPiD-QMD3AptTKRn8ISSjerd0er90GkfQ69Lp3Syv_v49B8mfLRO_Abrb2Bo</recordid><startdate>20231211</startdate><enddate>20231211</enddate><creator>Kansal, Amit</creator><creator>Latour, Jos M</creator><creator>See, Kay Choong</creator><creator>Rai, Sumeet</creator><creator>Cecconi, Maurizo</creator><creator>Britto, Carl</creator><creator>Conway Morris, Andrew</creator><creator>Dominic Savio, Raymond</creator><creator>Nadkarni, Vinay M</creator><creator>Rao, B K</creator><creator>Mishra, Rajesh</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20231211</creationdate><title>Interventions to promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units: consensus statement and considerations for best practice from a multidisciplinary and multinational eDelphi study</title><author>Kansal, Amit ; Latour, Jos M ; See, Kay Choong ; Rai, Sumeet ; Cecconi, Maurizo ; Britto, Carl ; Conway Morris, Andrew ; Dominic Savio, Raymond ; Nadkarni, Vinay M ; Rao, B K ; Mishra, Rajesh</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-a8e1ea38b5d480203d65aa3979adf951d939c8fbfdfb638453e61e028a9731ec3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Best practices</topic><topic>Committees</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Cost control</topic><topic>Critical care</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Delphi method</topic><topic>GNI</topic><topic>Gross National Income</topic><topic>Health promotion</topic><topic>Intensive care</topic><topic>Intensive care units</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Medical care</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Pandemics</topic><topic>Quality management</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Value-based care</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kansal, Amit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Latour, Jos M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>See, Kay Choong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rai, Sumeet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cecconi, Maurizo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Britto, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conway Morris, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dominic Savio, Raymond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nadkarni, Vinay M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rao, B K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mishra, Rajesh</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Critical care (London, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kansal, Amit</au><au>Latour, Jos M</au><au>See, Kay Choong</au><au>Rai, Sumeet</au><au>Cecconi, Maurizo</au><au>Britto, Carl</au><au>Conway Morris, Andrew</au><au>Dominic Savio, Raymond</au><au>Nadkarni, Vinay M</au><au>Rao, B K</au><au>Mishra, Rajesh</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Interventions to promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units: consensus statement and considerations for best practice from a multidisciplinary and multinational eDelphi study</atitle><jtitle>Critical care (London, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Crit Care</addtitle><date>2023-12-11</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>487</spage><epage>487</epage><pages>487-487</pages><artnum>487</artnum><issn>1364-8535</issn><eissn>1466-609X</eissn><eissn>1364-8535</eissn><eissn>1366-609X</eissn><abstract>There is limited evidence to guide interventions that promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units (ICU). The aim of this consensus statement is to identify globally applicable interventions for best ICU practice and provide guidance for judicious use of resources.
A three-round modified online Delphi process, using a web-based platform, sought consensus from 61 multidisciplinary ICU experts (physicians, nurses, allied health, administrators) from 21 countries. Round 1 was qualitative to ascertain opinions on cost-effectiveness criteria based on four key domains of high-value healthcare (foundational elements; infrastructure fundamentals; care delivery priorities; reliability and feedback). Round 2 was qualitative and quantitative, while round 3 was quantitative to reiterate and establish criteria. Both rounds 2 and 3 utilized a five-point Likert scale for voting. Consensus was considered when > 70% of the experts voted for a proposed intervention. Thereafter, the steering committee endorsed interventions that were identified as 'critical' by more than 50% of steering committee members. These interventions and experts' comments were summarized as final considerations for best practice.
At the conclusion of round 3, consensus was obtained on 50 best practice considerations for cost-effectiveness in adult ICU. Finally, the steering committee endorsed 9 'critical' best practice considerations. This included adoption of a multidisciplinary ICU model of care, focus on staff training and competency assessment, ongoing quality audits, thus ensuring high quality of critical care services whether within or outside the four walls of ICUs, implementation of a dynamic staff roster, multidisciplinary approach to implementing end-of-life care, early mobilization and promoting international consensus efforts on the Green ICU concept.
This Delphi study with international experts resulted in 9 consensus statements and best practice considerations promoting cost-effectiveness in adult ICUs. Stakeholders (government bodies, professional societies) must lead the efforts to identify locally applicable specifics while working within these best practice considerations with the available resources.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>38082302</pmid><doi>10.1186/s13054-023-04766-2</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1364-8535 |
ispartof | Critical care (London, England), 2023-12, Vol.27 (1), p.487-487, Article 487 |
issn | 1364-8535 1466-609X 1364-8535 1366-609X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10712165 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; SpringerNature Journals; Springer Nature OA Free Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Best practices Committees Cost analysis Cost benefit analysis Cost control Critical care Decision making Delphi method GNI Gross National Income Health promotion Intensive care Intensive care units Intervention Management Medical care Methods Pandemics Quality management Questionnaires Value-based care |
title | Interventions to promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units: consensus statement and considerations for best practice from a multidisciplinary and multinational eDelphi study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T10%3A23%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interventions%20to%20promote%20cost-effectiveness%20in%20adult%20intensive%20care%20units:%20consensus%20statement%20and%20considerations%20for%20best%20practice%20from%20a%20multidisciplinary%20and%20multinational%20eDelphi%20study&rft.jtitle=Critical%20care%20(London,%20England)&rft.au=Kansal,%20Amit&rft.date=2023-12-11&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=487&rft.epage=487&rft.pages=487-487&rft.artnum=487&rft.issn=1364-8535&rft.eissn=1466-609X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s13054-023-04766-2&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA776047924%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2902127102&rft_id=info:pmid/38082302&rft_galeid=A776047924&rfr_iscdi=true |