Background: Critically ill expectant mothers are regularly transferred from obstetrics units to an intensive care unit (ICU), placing one specialty population in an environment designed for another.Objective: The purpose of this study is to examine the rates of admission, admitting diagnoses, and mortality of obstetric intensive care patients in the United States and peer nations, and discuss implications to the critical care nurse.Methods: Relevant studies were identified in PubMed and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature following strict eligibility criteria, including peer reviewed primary research, from 2010-2021, that examined rates of admissions, diagnoses, morbidity, and mortality of peripartum women requiring intensive care. Specialty ICU and countries with an overall performance score from the World Health Organization that placed them in the lower two-thirds deciles of all member countries were excluded. Fourteen articles, representing 9 countries, were reviewed by a single doctoral student.Results: Few obstetrics patients required intensive care. The majority of admissions and deaths occurred within the postpartum period. The most common admitting diagnoses were hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and sepsis. Mean mortality ranged from 0.2% to 9.7%. The most common causes of death were cardiovascular diseases and postpartum hemorrhage.Discussion: These women represent a truly specialized subset within the critical care population.Limitations include possible selection, confounding, and chronology biases; use of a single data extractor, and a relative dearth of relevant studies, originating in developed nations.Conclusions: This review provided information on characteristics of the obstetric critical care population. Education and instituting early warning systems, formal debriefings, and standardization of protocols may assist in preparing critical care nurses in confidently caring for this population.

No abstract

PROBLEMThis study involved the use of analogical techniques in determining judgmental accuracy and in investigating a cue basis for judgment. Clinical judgment studies seldom have utilized methodologies adequately quantified and objectified by appropriate operational techniques. Methodologies analogous to the carefully controlled and standardized procedures used in laboratory experiment and research techniques paralleling the precision of psychophysical methodologies with respect to stimulus identification, description, and control ('-6 , have direct application to clinical judgment research. In this study, task administration and data reporting and recording methods(6) were standardized, task complexity ( a ) and task length (') were controlled, and criterion concepts were clegrly defined"). Selected personality variables were controlled for by classifying both judges and subjects(') on Byrne's(2) Repression-Sensitization (R-S) Scale.The specific purposes of the study were to (1) determine the accuracy of untrained male represser, neutral, and sensitizer judges in locating represser and sensitizer female targets on a scale representing the repression-sensitization personality dimension, and ( 2 ) investigate the types of cues judges reportedly used in locating these same targets. NETHODSubjects. Byme's(*) R-S Scale was administered to 116 female and 156 male undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology classes. Based on R-S Scale percentile ranks, 20 represser (below 17); 20 neutral (42-58); and 20 sensitizer (above 83) judges were selected from the sample of male volunteers.Materials. Four female targets were the same as those described previously ( I ) . Biographies of an extreme and moderate represser and an extreme and moderate sensitizer, and the five criterion definitions for each of the concepts 'represser' and 'sensitizer' were the same as those developed previously ( I ) . The demographic paragraph of the biography was always placed first, with the order of the occupational, emotional, social, and family paragraphs being randomized.Procedure. Judges were given four biographies in random order and assessed one target a t a time. Definitions of 'represser' and 'sensitizer' aided the judges in locating each target on a six inch scale representing the repression-sensitization continuum. Judges then listed a total of five cues from each biography reportedly considered most useful in locating each target on the scale. To insure that the cue area was properly identified, judges also indicated the number of the paragraph from which each cue was taken.Methods of Analysis. Each judge's estimate of a target's scale position was measured in tenths of inches and transformed to a z-score. Judge accuracy scores were determined by computing the absolute difference between the target's actual score obtained on the R-S Scale and each judge's estimate of her scale position.Judge accuracy scores were subjected to analyses of variance. Frequencies judges reported using cues from the five areas of the biograp...