IntroductionIntensive Care Units (ICUs) provide life-supporting treatment; however, resources are limited, so demand may exceed supply in the event of pandemics, environmental disasters, or in the context of an aging population. We hypothesized that comprehensive national data on ICU resources would permit a better understanding of regional differences in system capacity.MethodsAfter the 2009–2010 Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group surveyed all acute care hospitals in Canada to assess ICU capacity. Using a structured survey tool administered to physicians, respiratory therapists and nurses, we determined the number of ICU beds, ventilators, and the ability to provide specialized support for respiratory failure.ResultsWe identified 286 hospitals with 3170 ICU beds and 4982 mechanical ventilators for critically ill patients. Twenty-two hospitals had an ICU that routinely cared for children; 15 had dedicated pediatric ICUs. Per 100,000 population, there was substantial variability in provincial capacity, with a mean of 0.9 hospitals with ICUs (provincial range 0.4-2.8), 10 ICU beds capable of providing mechanical ventilation (provincial range 6–19), and 15 invasive mechanical ventilators (provincial range 10–24). There was only moderate correlation between ventilation capacity and population size (coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.771).ConclusionICU resources vary widely across Canadian provinces, and during times of increased demand, may result in geographic differences in the ability to care for critically ill patients. These results highlight the need to evolve inter-jurisdictional resource sharing during periods of substantial increase in demand, and provide background data for the development of appropriate critical care capacity benchmarks.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0852-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IVIG is used relatively infrequently in the critical care setting. The most common indications were GBS, TEN and NF. Mortality was high. There was no difference between community and academic ICUs.

No abstract

Purpose To determine whether a process change impacted the proportion of orders for single-agent, high-dose methotrexate entered by chemotherapy pharmacists instead of general pharmacy staff. Coordination of antiemetic premedication and leucovorin rescue with the new method of order entry was evaluated. Methods Adults treated with single-agent, high-dose methotrexate were identified retrospectively. Order entry of methotrexate and ancillary medications was examined to determine whether the old or new method was used and whether it was performed by a chemotherapy pharmacist. The fundamental difference between the old and new methods for order entry is use of the “unscheduled” frequency of medication administration to replace the administration frequency of “once” with a specified date and time. Timing of antiemetic premedication and leucovorin rescue relative to methotrexate administration were tallied for the new method. Chi-square analysis was performed for the primary objective. Observational statistics were performed otherwise. Results The number of evaluable encounters identified was 158. A chemotherapy pharmacist entered a greater proportion of orders when the new method was utilized (P < .0001). The proportion of orders entered by a chemotherapy pharmacist increased during the hours of 0700 and 2259 with the new method. Appropriate coordination of antiemetic and leucovorin administration was documented for 96% and 100% of cases with the new method of order entry. Conclusion The proportion of orders for single-agent, high-dose methotrexate entered by a chemotherapy pharmacist was significantly greater with the use of the new method. Administration of antiemetic premedication and leucovorin rescue were appropriately coordinated with the use of the new method for order entry of single-agent, high-dose methotrexate.