Talk:List of countries by hospital beds

Other sources

• The data :
  • Hospital beds by type of care : the data https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do
• The legend and pointers :
  • Health care resources (hlth_res) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/hlth_res_esms.htm
• The details and definitions :
  • Hospital beds by type of care pdf
  • Hospital beds by hospital ownership pdf
  • Beds in nursing and residential care facilities pdf
• References :
  • Definitions and classifications of the System of Health Accounts (SHA) pdf

Yug (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• ICU https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-012-2627-8
• USA https://www.ahd.com/state_statistics.html

• Good reference here for Asian countries and regions: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31923030

• https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/14/815675678/as-the-pandemic-spreads-will-there-be-enough-ventilators?t=1584485810548

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/opinion/coronavirus-doctor-new-york.html

• Health care material shortages https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/us/hospitals-coronavirus-ppe-shortage.html

- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/opinion/health/ventilator-shortage-coronavirus-solution.html

Scope

We are moving away from OECD-only scope. Help welcome ! Yug (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Russia ICU-CCB

Added information for Russia based on this link: http://government.ru/news/39218/

I hope I didn't make any mistakes, as I have calculated the number myself based on 146E6 population reported by Wikipedia and 12000 ICU-CCBs reported in the linked article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.172.40 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Mexico ICU

The AP reported "Mexico has only 5,000 emergency beds, and about 1,500 intensive care or sealed rooms, for a population of over 125 million" today (3/19/2020) so that could be used as a source to put some approximation for Mexico instead of having it be blank. https://apnews.com/ff99a460e304ffc67ab03d8a57b2e1ef — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.35.147 (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Added. But I'am not sure what those 5000 "emergency beds" are. Doesn't sound like ICU, so I removed them from the equation. Leaves "1500 ICU beds"/125.0M =1.2 ICU bed / 100,000. Yug (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

USA sources are unclear, need expert help to verify

• USA pop : 327.2M
• Critical Care Statistics https://www.sccm.org/Communications/Critical-Care-Statistics
  • "94,837 ICU beds" (AHA 2015)
  • "103,900 ICU beds" (HCRIS 2010)
• Critical Care Bed Growth in the United States. A Comparison of Regional and National Trends https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4351597/

I not sure what counts as ICU bed and what doesn't, so may someone with knowledge of the field review these 2 sources, compare them, and refresh the calculations ? Yug (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Useful data from WHO/WB

[1]. Contains lots of data we are missing, the problem is that some of it is for various years, which doesn't fit nicely into our table. I'd like to get some feedback before incorporating this here. Thoughts? PS. I tried to add data for India, for example, but I gave up. The table is too unwieldy. It only covers years 2013-2017, date for India I see is either older or newer, and adding a new year column requires editing code for 40+ lines. Ugh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, I'am thinking about this as well. I think we should move away from this former model, or have a |lastyear=2008|lastdata=2345. We must find something. Yug (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yug I think the lastyear/last data model would be much better. We can keep the old table with historical data in the article as a separate table called "longitudinal trends" or such, and if someone wants to work on them, they can, and the data will be saved, but I think most people don't care about changes from 2013 to 2017, but about the most up to date statistic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It could also be in an hidding/showing accordion. :) Yug (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The OECD website only has figures up to and including 2017 and I recently updated the table so that it covered the 5 years up to 2017 (previously was 5 years up to 2015). Is there any reliable source for figures throughout 2018 and 2019? I don't see a need to have historical figures beyond 5 years, as this amount of time is sufficient to represent a trend in change. The issue is countries that only have much older data available, as to present this figure among the contemporary figures would be misleading and grossly erroneous.

I also don't see a reason why ventilator numbers need to be on this table, as they aren't intrinsically related to hospital bed numbers, which this table (and indeed article) is fundamentally meant to represent. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Bungle, wow, thank you for the initial data then.

Ventilators are generally associated with ICU beds / CC beds / reanimations beds, so I think the could be in or out, either way. Then it's also more convenient to have all these data here so we have only one table to maintain. Altogether I went with the that flow and added the ventilators here. [message to be contunued] Yug (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: You have done a good job developing this article from a mere table that it was not too long ago when I converted it into a template form. I have been quietly tracking your activity and see the article has improved significantly, so well done for that. I can't say I am a big fan of tables that exceed a comfortable width (I appreciate that is a somewhat subjective comment) and I don't see how ventilators, whilst crucial in the current worldwide epidemic, can be solely linked to hospital bed numbers per country (as the two don't intrinsically go together, other than someone using a ventilator will typically also be using a hospital bed, but not the other way around). I value the information in having ventilator numbers referenced though, however I feel there are other apparatus which could also be deemed relevant in this context and so a secondary table may be a consideration. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I just worry of double maintainance while I'am already time limited ; I'am worry these numbers could get lower visibility while their are critical at this time ; and we need a call for action, empty cells, so people go out there, find these numbers, and bring them back to fill the empty ventilators cells. The table is getting 2 cells filled per day this past week, pretty good. Maybe we could move the ventilators numbers to Mechanical ventilation some days but I am not enthusiastic about this change now. Yug (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bungle:, I made some alternate IF-based template test but without success. The {IF| } do not accept the closing tag. Yug (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: I don't follow what you mean, or what you're trying to achieve. Could you sandbox it to demonstrate or write pseudocode somewhere? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bungle:I tried to create a variant of the current row template, here which would use a parameter page=bed or page=ventilator and then hide the relevant columns. I failed when using noinclude tags due to the "/" character breaking the if conditional. But maybe some css could do. This would allow to keep storing the data in one single table, with 2 differents display in articles. (not sure i'am clear) Yug (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am struggling to follow, but essentially you're suggesting we use the same table template within a separate article (such as List of countries by ventilators) and code would determine which data from the table is displayed depending upon which article is being viewed? I must say, it feels like a convoluted approach for what it achieves. This probably is doable, but you need to appreciate that the table is being generated outside of the row template as well, so if you're hiding full columns, you're only hiding the data rather than the column. Better to have the column as a dual-purpose, whereby the column quantity is retained but it's data can depend upon the page (although hiding can be done, differently). This assumes I am right about the separate ventilator page and would probably be helpful for that page to exist first (unless it does elsewhere under a different name), if it's appropriate to have one. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... I explored it but I'am not convinced by it either...... The ECMO page has a table which starts to get filled in. Split may be the way to go. Yug (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I can see the merits in keeping all "similar" data together, yet pretty much every column here, except the ventilators one is relevant to this article, so in this instance I do question the perceived benefits in the approach I assumed you were suggesting. I also still don't think this is the right table, indeed article, to be displaying ventilator numbers, although it would be worth having this data elsewhere that's more relevant. This table is based on country rank for hospital beds per 1000 pop and the ventilator column looks awkward and unfitting. I suggest to copy the ventilator data elsewhere for now (maybe a temporary user page) so that it can be removed from this table without losing the information, until a suitable location can be sought. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Bungle, feel free to split the table then. I will refocus on my IRL work for some days due to a deadline. Must wikibreak this week. Thanks for the wise feedbacks. Yug (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

List of hospitals by state in U.S.

I have started cleaning up and sourcing the List of hospitals in Minnesota and added the number of staffed beds. Healthcare is also a local issue and the current lists for each state need lots of work to make them more accurate. Help with sourcing and lists in other states would be great. G. Moore 15:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

9,500 ventilators in California.https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-26/coronavirus-ventilator-shortage-choice-health-care-doctors

Yug (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

New source for poor countries

• In Scramble for Coronavirus Supplies, Rich Countries Push Poor Aside https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/world/coronavirus-equipment-rich-poor.html
• Intensive Care Unit Capacity in Low-Income Countries: A Systematic Review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4305307/

Yug (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Turkey ICU beds

Looking at the linked source for Turkey ICU beds, it occurs to me that they are also counting ~12k neonatal care beds that would not be counted in other sources and would not be especially relevant in the context. IMHO the number of ICU beds per 100k people for Turkey should be corrected based on 24k adult ICU beds, which divided by 83M population comes out to 29.2 ICU beds per 100k people. Also, according to the next linked source from BBC, there are only 17k ventilators in Turkey. Should an ICU bed even count if it does not have one? If we count just the 17k, then to number would go down to 20.7 Aigarius (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you were discussing ventilator numbers in Turkey which is 17000. In comparison UK has around 8000, South Korea has 9800, and Italy has just 5000. There is no linear relationship between ICU beds count and number of Ventilators. An intensive care unit (ICU) may have only monitoring equipment, ventilator, both, or none.

As for your proposal to seperate NICU numbers let's consider United States (U.S):

They had 68,558 adult beds (ICU), 5137 pediatric ICU beds (PICU), and 22,901 neonatal ICU beds (NICU), and a population of 328.2 million in 2019 (96K total beds count) If you correct it based on 68K adult beds, it would go down to 20.8 (from current 29.4).

You claim that NICU are irrelevant when it comes to Turkey, but why are they counted in U.S source?

Also, NICU is just one of many types of ICU beds. Why not focus on ALL of them:

• coronary intensive care unit (CCU or CICU)
• medical intensive care unit (MICU)
• surgical intensive care unit (SICU)
• pediatric intensive care unit (PICU)
• neuroscience critical care unit (NCCU)
• overnight intensive-recovery (OIR)
• shock/trauma intensive-care unit (STICU)
• neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)
• ICU in the emergency department (E-ICU) 46.104.104.236 (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Sweden

Your numbers on Sweden are clearly wrong. The number of ICU beds per 100k is more likely twice your number, and I doubt there are fewer ventilators than ICU beds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blådjur (talk • contribs) 10:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Overengineered table hinders editors from updating and improving it

The very opposite of what a wiki is supposed to be. I started recreating the table as a simple wikitable in draft, but there are still a few references to copy over. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 01:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga: Exactly what is it about a templated table you dislike, or consider inferior? It automates various information (and removes possibility of human error for some) while being easy to understand in an editor with the same visual output to casual readers. There is nothing "over engineered" about it. I noted you also changed it on another article recently but I let it pass. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It makes WP less usable, Bungle. Not only it removes possibility of human error, but removes the possibility of human interaction altogether (but for the very well versed not only in template language in general, but in these specific templates in particular). This is just content ringfencing. No wonder it's over 3 years out of date. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 06:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga: While I don't wholly support your position, I can see that you are at least acting in good faith. It isn't unusual for data to go lengthy times without being updated, especially when it's quite a significant undertaking. That said, while I would argue there is a legitimate reason for template usage, it isn't worth squabbling over. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)