This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use for research, analyses, and text and data mining through PubMed Central. Acknowledgement of the original source shall include a notice similar to the following: "© 2020 American College of Physicians. Some rights reserved. This work permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

Read more

Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, much attention has been devoted to the fraught question of how to allocate intensive care unit beds and mechanical ventilators if the supply of these resources is insufficient to provide them to all patients considered to be in need. The authors believe that the deployment of aggressive medical technology to win the “war” against the pandemic may represent the triumph of deeply human instincts over optimal policy.

Throughout the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, much attention has been devoted to the fraught question of how to allocate intensive care unit (ICU) beds and mechanical ventilators if the supply of these resources is insufficient to provide them to all patients considered to be in need. Contemplating such tragic choices naturally conjures thoughts that we might have avoided these dilemmas by rapidly manufacturing new beds and ventilators at the first sign of a looming pandemic, or by rapidly converting existing beds and machines such that they could be used to expand the supply of critical care resources. These ideas stem from the natural human heuristic and conventional clinical ethos to mount unstinting effort toward saving the lives of those who fall ill. These views are also psychologically reinforced by the instinct to deploy aggressive medical technology to win the “war” against the pandemic.

Indeed, the instinct to save the lives of the desperately ill, which exemplifies the “rule of rescue” (1), is so intuitively powerful as to make it hard for humans to even consider competing approaches. No one would condone a response to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not include using the nation's full supply of critical care resources. However, the drive to build even more beds and ventilators will do more to assuage public anxiety and outrage than to reduce overall mortality, owing to both the poor outcomes among patients with COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation and the diversion of clinical workforces.

We argue that supply-side investments in critical care in the midst of the pandemic would not substantially improve population health in the short term and would worsen it in the long term. As psychologically disruptive as it may be to consider not expanding the critical care supply, such expansions would magnify the already considerable skew of U.S. health care toward intensive care. We further argue that even modest improvements in public health measures, such as physical distancing (which might be promoted by infomercials featuring sports or movie stars) and training more health care workers to become expert in serious illness communication, would be more effective than investments in critical care for improving short-term population health.

Before COVID-19, the United States had more ICU beds and ventilators per capita than nearly any other country (2). Indeed, an assessment of ICU occupancy and ventilator use revealed that during noncrisis times, the United States has a glut of critical care resources. In any given hour, only two thirds of ICU beds are occupied and only one third are occupied by patients receiving mechanical ventilation (3). Although these numbers have been starkly different during the COVID-19 crisis, they highlight our substantial existing capacity to care for those most likely to benefit from critical care.

As a result of this extant capacity, adding ventilators and ICU beds would make critical care delivery less efficient. Indeed, many studies have shown that when ICU beds are tight, critical care is increasingly allocated to patients who benefit from it, without increasing overall mortality (4–6). Building more beds and ventilators would offset these efficiencies of scarcity, increasing the already high mortality rates observed among patients with COVID-19 who require mechanical ventilation (7). Although the total number of survivors might increase to an extent, so too would the burden of chronic critical illness.

The second reason that building more ICU beds and ventilators will not deliver the hoped-for life savings is that they are not the scarcest resources during the current pandemic. Most projections indicate that ward beds and healthy critical care clinicians will be more scarce than ICU beds or ventilators (8). Thus, expansions to the ventilator supply may carry adverse consequences for population health by requiring the redeployment of non–critical care clinicians and beds, such that non–critically ill patients may become critically ill and even die.

Such workforce redeployment reveals a third reason to doubt the benefits of increasing critical care capacity: the adverse consequences for clinician effectiveness and well-being. Although building beds and ventilators may prevent the moral distress that certain clinicians would otherwise feel in having to make life-or-death choices about allocation, redeployment would likely increase burnout among clinicians who are unaccustomed to working in critical care environments. Asking physicians who have not contemplated a ventilator since medical school to manage the sickest ventilated patients, particularly without adequate personal protective equipment, could adversely affect the long-term health of the clinical workforce.

Fourth, every dollar spent building more ICU beds and ventilators would save more lives if instead spent on more testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), contact tracing, and personal protective equipment, or on promoting adherence to physical distancing. Indeed, using the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics (8), we projected that even a doubling of the ventilator supply would not save as many lives as a 40% decrease in physical contact. And the sooner in a region's epidemic trajectory such policies were implemented, the greater the benefit of distancing, and the less the benefit of ventilator production.

Other, less obvious initiatives might also yield greater benefits to short-term population health. For example, palliative care clinicians and others with excellent skills in serious illness communication and symptom management are among the scarcest of all health care resources (9). Thus, COVID-19 leads us to utilize our preexisting glut of critical care resources, but it also magnifies the preexisting shortage of palliative care clinicians. Although expanding the palliative care workforce will not save lives, it may offer a societal investment superior to that of critical care expansion, given the resultant benefits in quality of life for patients and their family caregivers.

Finally, in a nation in which nearly 1% of gross domestic product is already allocated to critical care, further growth should be approached with extreme reticence. History suggests that any COVID-19–induced expansions to the critical care supply may unfortunately be hard to reverse once the pandemic ends. Supply-induced demand—or, “if you build it, they will come”—was a hallmark of U.S. critical care well before COVID-19 (10). Having experienced this pandemic, we will find it difficult to shrink the critical care supply for fear of being underprepared for the next pandemic.

Our natural moral reasoning precludes us from withholding available critical care, even from patients with remote chances of benefiting from it, and the same reasoning motivates us to expand critical care during times of need. But even if building more ICU beds and ventilators neither crowded out opportunities for other more effective initiatives nor exacerbated critical care excesses in the future, it would ultimately represent the triumph of deeply human instincts over optimal policy.

Are ICU beds different from other hospital beds? Specifications & Features

Pukang are exported all over the world and different industries with quality first. Our belief is to provide our customers with more and better high value-added products. Let's create a better future together.

This function allows medical teams to flatten the bed platform at the push of a button or lever. In an emergency, this quickly creates the flat, hard surface needed to perform CPR (Cardiopulmonary resuscitation).

IV poles with hooks

IV poles are used to securely hang fluids or medications that a patient needs to have administered via a drip. They typically have 2 or 4 hooks which can each support a fluid container.

Having an IV pole with multiple hooks is beneficial in ICUs where patients will often require multiple medications at once.

Choosing an ICU bed with an IV pole included makes it easier to move a patient in an emergency. Rather than having to wheel both the bed and the IV pole, medical staff only have to focus on moving one piece of equipment. This reduces the risk of injury or damage to the IV supply.

Removable head and footboards

Beds with removable head and footboards, which lock safely into place when in use, are often preferred in ICUs.

There are two key benefits to this design:

• In an emergency scenario, removing the headboard allows medical staff to stand behind the patient. This frees up more space to work around the patient and provides easier access to the head to support breathing.
• It’s easier to perform prone positioning. This procedure involves rotating a patient from lying face up to face down.

Intermittent prone positioning has been shown to improve external respiration and improve/prevent acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in critical care patients.

Nurse Controls

Electric hospital beds can have several different options for controls. Some have a patient handset or patient controls built into the siderail. Others have a nurse control handset or nursing controls built into the base of the footboard. Often, there will be a combination of controls available on a single bed.

For ICU beds, having built-in nurse controls offers several benefits:

• Nursing controls can lock functions on any patient handsets. This will protect a vulnerable patient who cannot operate the bed themselves from accidents.
• There are no trailing wires which can cause a trip hazard when staff are rushing to assist during an emergency.
• There’s no risk of controls getting lost. ICUs are busy places. If staff need the bed to perform a function, they can activate it immediately without having to locate a handset.
• Bed accessories, such as weighing scales, can be incorporated. This helps to monitor the weight of patients who are too unwell to sit or stand to be weighed.

ICU Beds vs. Hospital Ward Beds

All the features listed above have one key thing in common. They help medical staff to react and provide treatment quicker in an emergency.

This is crucial in an ICU and perhaps the key difference between ICU beds and other hospital beds.

Levels of Care

In the UK, all hospitals classify patients based on their care needs. Here are the different levels of care categories used by NHS Trusts:

Level 0 – Patients whose needs can be met through normal ward care.

Level 1 – Patients at risk of deterioration, or those recently transferred from level 2/3. Their needs can be met on an acute ward with some advice and support from the critical care team.

Level 2 – Patients who need more detailed observation or intervention. This includes those requiring support for a single failing organ system or post-operative care and those ‘stepping down’ from level 3 care.

Level 3 – Patients requiring advanced respiratory support or basic respiratory support plus support of two or more organ systems.

ICUs care for level 2 and level 3 patients. They are more likely to have complex needs or to deteriorate suddenly and require immediate intervention from medical staff.

Therefore, ICU beds need to be equipped to support this rapid response.

Most hospitals need versatile beds

We’ve looked at which features are particularly helpful for ICUs and why. But, in reality, most hospitals we work with at Innova want beds that are flexible and versatile enough to use in different areas of the hospital.

Over the years, we’ve supplied hundreds of beds with the features listed above to wards outside of ICUs. Emergencies can occur anywhere, so it helps to be prepared for rapid response.

Plus, if circumstances change and there is a sudden increase in critically ill patients then it helps to have additional beds available to facilitate critical care.

Supporting ICUs through the COVID-19 crisis

The current COVID-19 outbreak in the UK has caused just that. ICUs are facing increased demand and hospitals across the country require more beds suited to critical care. We’re pleased to say we have already delivered much-needed beds to NHS Trusts nationwide — including the NHS Nightingale Hospital North West in Manchester.

We still have large stocks of beds available for urgent delivery to NHS Trusts. Our expert team are on hand 24/7 to help procurement teams source beds which meet their hospital’s requirements and are equipped for ICU use.

Please do get in touch if we can help in any way — call 0345 0341450

For more information, please visit icu bed manufacturer.