Developing consensus-based indicators for intensive care unit capacity and capability in South Korea: a modified Delphi study.

IF 2.3 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Acute and Critical Care Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-28 DOI:10.4266/acc.000676
Jeehye Lee, Ho Kyung Sung, Min-Hwan Oh, Jin Young Kim, KyoungHo Kim, Jae Young Moon
{"title":"Developing consensus-based indicators for intensive care unit capacity and capability in South Korea: a modified Delphi study.","authors":"Jeehye Lee, Ho Kyung Sung, Min-Hwan Oh, Jin Young Kim, KyoungHo Kim, Jae Young Moon","doi":"10.4266/acc.000676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intensive care units (ICUs) are essential components of modern healthcare systems, but South Korea lacks capability-based standards for ICU classification. Critically ill patients are frequently assigned based on bed availability rather than clinical need, creating mismatches between patient acuity and ICU capability. The aim of this study was to develop consensus-based indicators for assessing ICU capacity and capability in South Korea.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A modified Delphi study was conducted with 24 multidisciplinary experts, including members of the Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Standardization Committee. Based on a systematic review of international ICU frameworks (SCCM, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society), 42 candidate indicators across six domains were evaluated over three rounds (April-July 2025). Consensus was defined as a content validity ratio ≥ a preset critical threshold and ≥75% expert agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rates were 79.2%-91.7% across rounds. The final framework comprises 29 indicators across four domains: Capacity (staffing, facilities, bed management), Capability (life support, specialized care), Human resources (physician and allied health coverage), and Space and equipment infrastructure (monitoring and safety systems). The experts prioritized functional capabilities over structural metrics: nurse-to-bed ratios were rated more important than physician numbers, and 24/7 service availability was prioritized over personnel counts. Ward support, education, and research indicators did not reach consensus.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study establishes the first expert consensus framework for ICU capability assessment in South Korea. The 29 indicators provide a foundation for a capability-oriented classification system that prioritizes patient safety and efficient resource allocation. Future research should validate these indicators against clinical outcomes and explore real-time ICU capacity monitoring strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":44118,"journal":{"name":"Acute and Critical Care","volume":"41 2","pages":"282-294"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13268723/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acute and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.000676","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Intensive care units (ICUs) are essential components of modern healthcare systems, but South Korea lacks capability-based standards for ICU classification. Critically ill patients are frequently assigned based on bed availability rather than clinical need, creating mismatches between patient acuity and ICU capability. The aim of this study was to develop consensus-based indicators for assessing ICU capacity and capability in South Korea.

Methods: A modified Delphi study was conducted with 24 multidisciplinary experts, including members of the Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Standardization Committee. Based on a systematic review of international ICU frameworks (SCCM, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society), 42 candidate indicators across six domains were evaluated over three rounds (April-July 2025). Consensus was defined as a content validity ratio ≥ a preset critical threshold and ≥75% expert agreement.

Results: The response rates were 79.2%-91.7% across rounds. The final framework comprises 29 indicators across four domains: Capacity (staffing, facilities, bed management), Capability (life support, specialized care), Human resources (physician and allied health coverage), and Space and equipment infrastructure (monitoring and safety systems). The experts prioritized functional capabilities over structural metrics: nurse-to-bed ratios were rated more important than physician numbers, and 24/7 service availability was prioritized over personnel counts. Ward support, education, and research indicators did not reach consensus.

Conclusions: This study establishes the first expert consensus framework for ICU capability assessment in South Korea. The 29 indicators provide a foundation for a capability-oriented classification system that prioritizes patient safety and efficient resource allocation. Future research should validate these indicators against clinical outcomes and explore real-time ICU capacity monitoring strategies.

为韩国重症监护病房的容量和能力制定基于共识的指标:一项修正的德尔菲研究。
背景:重症监护病房(ICU)是现代医疗保健系统的重要组成部分,但韩国缺乏基于能力的ICU分类标准。危重病人通常是根据床位而不是临床需要来分配的,这造成了病人的敏锐度和ICU能力之间的不匹配。本研究的目的是制定基于共识的指标来评估韩国ICU的容量和能力。方法:对包括韩国危重医学学会(SCCM)标准化委员会成员在内的24名多学科专家进行修正德尔菲研究。基于对国际ICU框架(SCCM,欧洲重症监护医学学会,澳大利亚和新西兰重症监护学会)的系统回顾,在三轮(2025年4月至7月)中评估了六个领域的42个候选指标。一致性定义为内容效度比≥预设的临界阈值,专家同意度≥75%。结果:各轮有效率为79.2% ~ 91.7%。最终框架包括四个领域的29项指标:能力(人员配备、设施、床位管理)、能力(生命支持、专业护理)、人力资源(医生和联合健康覆盖)以及空间和设备基础设施(监测和安全系统)。专家们优先考虑功能能力,而不是结构指标:护士与床位的比例比医生数量更重要,24/7服务的可用性优先于人员数量。病房支持、教育和研究指标未达成共识。结论:本研究建立了韩国ICU能力评估的第一个专家共识框架。这29项指标为以能力为导向的分类系统提供了基础,该系统优先考虑患者安全和有效的资源分配。未来的研究应该根据临床结果验证这些指标,并探索实时ICU容量监测策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acute and Critical Care
Acute and Critical Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
87
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书