Past, present, and future of sustainable intensive care: narrative review and a large hospital system experience.

Healthcare systems are large contributors to global emissions, and intensive care units (ICUs) are a complex and resource-intensive component of these systems. Recent global movements in sustainability initiatives, led mostly by Europe and Oceania, have tried to mitigate ICUs' notable environmental impact with varying success. However, there exists a significant gap in the U.S. knowledge and published literature related to sustainability in the ICU. After a narrative review of the literature and related industry standards, we share our experience with a Green ICU initiative at a large hospital system in Texas. Our process has led to a 3-step pathway to inform similar initiatives for sustainable (green) critical care. This pathway involves (1) establishing a baseline by quantifying the status quo carbon footprint of the affected ICU as well as the cumulative footprint of all the ICUs in the healthcare system; (2) forming alliances and partnerships to target each major source of these pollutants and implement specific intervention programs that reduce the ICU-related greenhouse gas emissions and solid waste; and (3) finally to implement a systemwide Green ICU which requires the creation of multiple parallel pathways that marshal the resources at the grass-roots level to engage the ICU staff and institutionalize a mindset that recognizes and respects the impact of ICU functions on our environment. It is expected that such a systems-based multi-stakeholder approach would pave the way for improved sustainability in critical care.

Is 24/7 In-House Intensivist Staffing Necessary in the Intensive Care Unit?

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.