RESUMEN
Over the past few decades, an increasing number of studies have shown that intensivist-staffed intensive care units (ICUs) lead to overall economic benefits and improved patient outcomes, including shorter length of stay and lower rates of complications and mortality. This body of evidence has convinced advocacy groups to adopt this staffing model as a standard of care in the ICU so that more hospitals are offering around-the-clock intensivist coverage. Even so, opponents have pointed to high ICU staffing costs and a shortage of physicians trained in critical care as barriers to implementing this model. While these arguments may hold true in low-acuity, low-volume ICUs, evidence has shown that in high-acuity, high-volume centers such as teaching hospitals and tertiary care centers, the benefits outweigh the costs. This article explores the history of intensivists and critical care, the arguments for 24/7 ICU staffing, and outcomes in various ICU settings but is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all controversies surrounding continuous ICU staffing.