The Critical Nature of Addressing Burnout Prevention: Results From the Critical Care Societies Collaborative's National Summit and Survey on Prevention and Management of Burnout in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the results of expert discussions and recommendations from a National Summit and survey on the promoting wellness and preventing and managing burnout in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: Literature review; Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) Statement on Burnout Syndrome in Critical Care Healthcare Professionals: A Call for Action; CCSC's National Summit on Prevention and Management of Burnout in the ICU; and a descriptive survey on strategies for addressing burnout using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) (project-redcap.org). DATA SYNTHESIS: Building on the CCSC call for action to address burnout among critical care professionals, the CCSC sponsored the National Summit on Prevention and Management of Burnout in the ICU with 55 invited experts in various fields including psychology, sociology, integrative medicine, psychiatry, suicide prevention, bereavement support, ethics, palliative care, meditation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, among others. Attendees joined breakout groups, to identify factors influencing burnout in ICU professionals and the value of organizational and individual interventions. As a follow-up to the Summit, a descriptive survey assessing strategies for addressing burnout was sent via email or newsletter blast with responses received from 680 CCSC members, including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, and others. CONCLUSIONS: The Summit attendees identified the importance of raising awareness among critical care clinicians and key stakeholders, advocating for workplace changes to promote healthy work environments, and promoting research to further explore practical strategies to address, mitigate, and prevent burnout. Critical care clinicians reported that a number of initiatives are being implemented both at their hospitals and at the unit level to build resilience and address burnout prevention. However, other respondents reported that no measures were being used within their organizations, and that colleagues were experiencing burnout. Dissemination and application of resiliency building measures and strategies to address burnout in critical care clinicians are needed.

Workforce, Workload, and Burnout in Critical Care Organizations: Survey Results and Research Agenda.

OBJECTIVES: This report provides analyses and perspective of a survey of critical care workforce, workload, and burnout among the intensivists and advanced practice providers of established U.S. and Canadian critical care organizations and provides a research agenda. DESIGN: A 97-item electronic survey questionnaire was distributed to the leaders of 27 qualifying organizations. SETTING: United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Leaders of critical care organizations in the United States and Canada. INTERVENTIONS: None. DATA SYNTHESIS AND MAIN RESULTS: We received 23 responses (85%). The critical care organization survey recorded substantial variability of most organizational aspects that were not restricted by the critical care organization definition or regulatory mandates. The most common physician staffing model was a combination of full-time and part-time intensivists. Approximately 80% of critical care organizations had dedicated advanced practice providers that staffed some or all their ICUs. Full-time intensivists worked a median of 168 days (range 42-192 d) in the ICU (168 shifts = 24 7-d wk). The median shift duration was 12 hours (range, 7-14 hr), and the median number of consecutive shifts allowed was 7 hours (range 7-14 hr). More than half of critical care organizations reported having burnout prevention programs targeted to ICU physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses. CONCLUSIONS: The variability of current approaches suggests that systematic comparative analyses could identify best organizational practices. The research agenda for the study of critical care organizations should include studies that provide insights regarding the effects of the integrative structure of critical care organizations on outcomes at the levels of our patients, our workforce, our work practices, and sustainability.

Choosing Wisely in Critical Care: Results of a National Survey From the Critical Care Societies Collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: Over-utilization of tests, treatments, and procedures is common for hospitalized patients in ICU settings. American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely campaign tasked professional societies to identify sources of overuse in specialty care practice. The purpose of this study was to assess how critical care clinicians were implementing the Critical Care Societies Collaborative Choosing Wisely recommendations in clinical practice. DESIGN: Descriptive survey methodology with use of Research Electronic Data Capture (https://projectredcap.org/) sent via email newsletter blast or to individual emails of the 150,000 total members of the organizations. SETTING: National survey. SUBJECTS: ICU physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, and pharmacist members of four national critical care societies in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A six-question survey assessed what Choosing Wisely recommendations had been implemented in ICU settings and if the impact was assessed. A total of 2,520 responses were received from clinicians: nurses (61%; n = 1538), physicians (25.9%; n = 647), advanced practice providers (10.5%; n = 263), and pharmacists (2.1%; n = 52), reflecting a 1.6% response rate of the total membership of 150,000 clinicians. Overall, 1,273 respondents (50.6%) reported they were familiar with the Choosing Wisely campaign. Respondents reported that Choosing Wisely recommendations had been integrated in a number of ways including being implemented in clinical care (n = 817; 72.9%), through development of a specific clinical protocol or institutional guideline (n = 736; 65.7%), through development of electronic medical record orders (n = 626; 55.8%), or with integration of longitudinal tracking using an electronic dashboard (n = 213; 19.0%). Some respondents identified that a specific quality improvement initiative was developed related to the Choosing Wisely recommendations (n = 468; 41.7%), or that a research initiative had been conducted (n = 156; 13.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The results provide information on the application of the Choosing Wisely recommendations to clinical practice from a small sample of critical care clinicians. However, as only half of the respondents report implementation, additional strategies are needed to promote the Choosing Wisely recommendations to make impactful change to improve care in ICU settings.

Supply Chain Delays in Antimicrobial Administration After the Initial Clinician Order and Mortality in Patients With Sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: There is mounting evidence that delays in appropriate antimicrobial administration are responsible for preventable deaths in patients with sepsis. Herein, we examine the association between potentially modifiable antimicrobial administration delays, measured by the time from the first order to the first administration (antimicrobial lead time), and death among people who present with new onset of sepsis. DESIGN: Observational cohort and case-control study. SETTING: The emergency department of an academic, tertiary referral center during a 3.5-year period. PATIENTS: Adult patients with new onset of sepsis or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We enrolled 4,429 consecutive patients who presented to the emergency department with a new diagnosis of sepsis. We defined 0-1 hour as the gold standard antimicrobial lead time for comparison. Fifty percent of patients had an antimicrobial lead time of more than 1.3 hours. For an antimicrobial lead time of 1-2 hours, the adjusted odds ratio of death at 28 days was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.07-1.54; p = 0.007); for an antimicrobial lead time of 2-3 hours was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.85-1.36; p = 0.6); for an antimicrobial lead time of 3-6 hours was 1.57 (95% CI, 1.26-1.95; p < 0.001); for an antimicrobial lead time of 6-12 hours was 1.36 (95% CI, 0.99-1.86; p = 0.06); and for an antimicrobial lead time of more than 12 hours was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.29-2.65; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delays in the first antimicrobial execution, after the initial clinician assessment and first antimicrobial order, are frequent and detrimental. Biases inherent to the retrospective nature of the study apply. Known biologic mechanisms support these findings, which also demonstrate a dose-response effect. In contrast to the elusive nature of sepsis onset and sepsis onset recognition, antimicrobial lead time is an objective, measurable, and modifiable process.

An Official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline: Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults. Rehabilitation Protocols, Ventilator Liberation Protocols, and Cuff Leak Tests.

BACKGROUND: Interventions that lead to earlier liberation from mechanical ventilation can improve patient outcomes. This guideline, a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians, provides evidence-based recommendations to optimize liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. METHODS: Two methodologists performed evidence syntheses to summarize available evidence relevant to key questions about liberation from mechanical ventilation. The methodologists appraised the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and summarized the results in evidence profiles. The guideline panel then formulated recommendations after considering the balance of desirable consequences (benefits) versus undesirable consequences (burdens, adverse effects, and costs), the certainty in the evidence, and the feasibility and acceptability of various interventions. Recommendations were rated as strong or conditional. RESULTS: The guideline panel made four conditional recommendations related to rehabilitation protocols, ventilator liberation protocols, and cuff leak tests. The recommendations were for acutely hospitalized adults mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours to receive protocolized rehabilitation directed toward early mobilization, be managed with a ventilator liberation protocol, be assessed with a cuff leak test if they meet extubation criteria but are deemed high risk for postextubation stridor, and be administered systemic steroids for at least 4 hours before extubation if they fail the cuff leak test. CONCLUSIONS: The American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians recommendations are intended to support healthcare professionals in their decisions related to liberating critically ill adults from mechanical ventilation.

Official Executive Summary of an American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline: Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The Evidence-to-Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, the confidence in the evidence, the certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, the magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, the resources and costs associated with the intervention, the impact on health disparities, and the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. RESULTS: Evidence-based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified after full-panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and Chest.

A Critical Care Societies Collaborative Statement: Burnout Syndrome in Critical Care Health-care Professionals. A Call for Action.

Burnout syndrome (BOS) occurs in all types of health-care professionals and is especially common in individuals who care for critically ill patients. The development of BOS is related to an imbalance of personal characteristics of the employee and work-related issues or other organizational factors. BOS is associated with many deleterious consequences, including increased rates of job turnover, reduced patient satisfaction, and decreased quality of care. BOS also directly affects the mental health and physical well-being of the many critical care physicians, nurses, and other health-care professionals who practice worldwide. Until recently, BOS and other psychological disorders in critical care health-care professionals remained relatively unrecognized. To raise awareness of BOS, the Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) developed this call to action. The present article reviews the diagnostic criteria, prevalence, causative factors, and consequences of BOS. It also discusses potential interventions that may be used to prevent and treat BOS. Finally, we urge multiple stakeholders to help mitigate the development of BOS in critical care health-care professionals and diminish the harmful consequences of BOS, both for critical care health-care professionals and for patients.

An Official Critical Care Societies Collaborative Statement: Burnout Syndrome in Critical Care Healthcare Professionals: A Call for Action.

Burnout syndrome (BOS) occurs in all types of healthcare professionals and is especially common in individuals who care for critically ill patients. The development of BOS is related to an imbalance of personal characteristics of the employee and work-related issues or other organizational factors. BOS is associated with many deleterious consequences, including increased rates of job turnover, reduced patient satisfaction, and decreased quality of care. BOS also directly affects the mental health and physical well-being of the many critical care physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who practice worldwide. Until recently, BOS and other psychological disorders in critical care healthcare professionals remained relatively unrecognized. To raise awareness of BOS, the Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) developed this call to action. The present article reviews the diagnostic criteria, prevalence, causative factors, and consequences of BOS. It also discusses potential interventions that may be used to prevent and treat BOS. Finally, we urge multiple stakeholders to help mitigate the development of BOS in critical care healthcare professionals and diminish the harmful consequences of BOS, both for critical care healthcare professionals and for patients.

Early goal-directed resuscitation of patients with septic shock: current evidence and future directions.

Severe sepsis and septic shock are among the leading causes of mortality in the intensive care unit. Over a decade ago, early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) emerged as a novel approach for reducing sepsis mortality and was incorporated into guidelines published by the international Surviving Sepsis Campaign. In addition to requiring early detection of sepsis and prompt initiation of antibiotics, the EGDT protocol requires invasive patient monitoring to guide resuscitation with intravenous fluids, vasopressors, red cell transfusions, and inotropes. The effect of these measures on patient outcomes, however, remains controversial. Recently, three large randomized trials were undertaken to re-examine the effect of EGDT on morbidity and mortality: the ProCESS trial in the United States, the ARISE trial in Australia and New Zealand, and the ProMISe trial in England. These trials showed that EGDT did not significantly decrease mortality in patients with septic shock compared with usual care. In particular, whereas early administration of antibiotics appeared to increase survival, tailoring resuscitation to static measurements of central venous pressure and central venous oxygen saturation did not confer survival benefit to most patients. In the following review, we examine these findings as well as other evidence from recent randomized trials of goal-directed resuscitation. We also discuss future areas of research and emerging paradigms in sepsis trials.

An official American Thoracic Society/American Association of Critical-Care Nurses/American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine policy statement: the Choosing Wisely® Top 5 list in Critical Care Medicine.

RATIONALE: The high costs of health care in the United States and other developed nations are attributable, in part, to overuse of tests, treatments, and procedures that provide little to no benefit for patients. To improve the quality of care while also combating this problem of cost, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation developed the Choosing Wisely Campaign, tasking professional societies to develop lists of the top five medical services that patients and physicians should question. OBJECTIVES: To present the Critical Care Societies Collaborative's Top 5 list in Critical Care Medicine and describe its development. METHODS: Each professional society in the Collaborative nominated members to the Choosing Wisely task force, which established explicit criteria for evaluating candidate items, generated lists of items, performed literature reviews on each, and sought external input from content experts. Task force members narrowed the list to the Top 5 items using a standardized scoring system based on each item's likely overall impact and merits on the five explicit criteria. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From an initial list of 58 unique recommendations, the task force proposed a Top 5 list that was ultimately endorsed by each Society within the Collaborative. The five recommendations are: (1) do not order diagnostic tests at regular intervals (such as every day), but rather in response to specific clinical questions; (2) do not transfuse red blood cells in hemodynamically stable, nonbleeding ICU patients with an Hb concentration greater than 7 g/dl; (3) do not use parenteral nutrition in adequately nourished critically ill patients within the first 7 days of an ICU stay; (4) do not deeply sedate mechanically ventilated patients without a specific indication and without daily attempts to lighten sedation; and (5) do not continue life support for patients at high risk for death or severely impaired functional recovery without offering patients and their families the alternative of care focused entirely on comfort. CONCLUSIONS: These five recommendations provide a starting point for clinicians and patients to make decisions leading to higher-quality, lower-cost care. Future work is needed to promote adherence to these recommendations and to develop additional ways for intensive care clinicians to take leadership in reining in health-care costs.

Subglottic secretion volume and viscosity: effect of systemic volume and oral hydration.

OBJECTIVES: Removal of secretions from the subglottic space, which is the larynx cavity below the glottis that contains the vocal cords, reduces the risk for ventilator associated pneumonia. Relationships between factors associated with subglottic secretion volume and viscosity have not been investigated. Subglottic secretions may have a possible link with systemic volume status and oral cavity hydration. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among systemic volume, oral cavity hydration, and subglottic secretion (SS) volume and viscosity in mechanically ventilated adults. DESIGN: Seventy daily oral and SS samples were obtained over a 24-hour collection period from 15 mechanically ventilated adults. Markers of systemic volume and oral cavity hydration and measurements of SS volume and viscosity were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The daily volume of oral secretions ranged from 0 to 1.0 mL (SD 0.180 mL), and SS ranged from 0 to 15 mL (SD 22.9 mL). BUN/creatinine ratio (marker of systemic volume status) was moderately correlated with oral secretion volume (r = -0.43). Weak correlations were identified between SS volume and oral volume (r = 0.29) and SS viscosity and oral viscosity (r = 0.22). No other linear relationships were identified among the variables. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that SS accumulation occurs, the amount varies widely, and the secretions are highly viscous. SS volume and viscosity were not found to have a very strong relationship with the variables measured. Nevertheless, clinical implications for practice are present. Further research is needed to understand secretion dynamics in ventilated adults to prevent complications and promote positive patient outcomes.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002. METHODS: The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. CONCLUSION: These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

Optimizing safe, comfortable ICU care through multi-professional quality improvement: just DO it.

Translating research to the bedside can present significant challenges in the complex ICU environment. In this issue of Critical Care, de Jong and colleagues report on a quality improvement project (NURSE-DO) that led to a decrease in severe pain and serious adverse events during nursing care procedures in their ICU. In this commentary we describe three aspects of this quality improvement study that we think contributed to the overall success of the NURSE-DO project: the hospital environment and culture; multi-professional partnerships; and an evidence-based structured approach.

Evaluating and monitoring sedation, arousal, and agitation in the ICU.

Optimal management of patient comfort and sedative drug therapy for intensive care unit (ICU) patients includes establishing a goal of therapy-often defined by a desired level of consciousness, with titration of medications to achieve this target. An assessment of the level of consciousness is best performed using a simple tool, such as a sedation scale that relies on observation of the patient to assign a level of conscious that ranges from alert to unarousable. Many sedation scales incorporate observation of the patient's response to stimulation, which typically escalates from simply calling the patient's name to physical stimulation. Many such tools also incorporate an assessment of the presence and intensity of agitated behavior. Implementation of sedation scales has been associated with improved outcomes, and the frequent assessment of level of consciousness using a sedation scale is strongly recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Further, selection of a sedation scale that has been demonstrated to be valid and reliable in your patient population is endorsed. Objective measures of consciousness, such as devices that use processed electroencephalography, are less well established for routine ICU management and are recommended only for selected situations.

Multisociety task force for critical care research: key issues and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. OBJECTIVE: To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. METHODS: The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the U.S. Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. RESULTS: The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: (1) the traditional "silo-ed" approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; (2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (i.e., basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; (3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and (4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. CONCLUSIONS: This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross-section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine.

Patients Who Decompensate and Trigger Rapid Response Immediately Upon Hospital Admission Have Higher Mortality Than Equivalent Patients Without Rapid Responses.

BACKGROUND: Rapid response teams (RRTs) have impacted the management of decompensating patients, potentially improving mortality. Few studies address the significance of RRT timing relative to hospital admission. We aimed to identify outcomes of adult patients who trigger immediate RRT activation, defined as within 4 hours of admission and compare with RRT later in admission or do not require RRT activation, and identify risk factors that predispose toward immediate RRT activation. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed using an RRT activation database, comprising 201,783 adult inpatients at an urban, academic, tertiary care hospital. This group was subdivided by timing of RRT activation regarding admission: within the first 4 hours (immediate RRT), between 4 and 24 hours (early RRT), and after 24 hours (late RRT). The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Individuals triggering an immediate RRT were compared with demographically matched controls. Mortality was adjusted for age, Quick Systemic Organ Failure Assessment score, intensive care unit admission, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: Patients with immediate RRT had adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality of 7.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6%-8.5%) and death odds ratio of 3.27 (95% CI, 2.5-4.3) compared with those who did not (mortality, 2.9%; 95%CI, 2.8%-2.9%; P < 0.0001). Patients triggering an immediate RRT were more likely to be Black, be older, and have higher Quick Systemic Organ Failure Assessment scores than those who did not trigger RRT activation. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, patients who require immediate RRT experienced higher 28-day all-cause mortality, potentially because of evolving or unrecognized critical illness. Further exploring this phenomenon may create opportunities for improved patient safety.

Multisociety Task Force for Critical Care Research: key issues and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. OBJECTIVE: To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. METHODS: The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. RESULTS: The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional "silo-ed" approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (i.e., basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. CONCLUSIONS: This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine.

Supporting Professionals in Critical Care Medicine: Burnout, Resiliency, and System-Level Change.

Burnout is occurring in epidemic proportions among intensive care unit physicians and other health-care professionals-accelerated by pandemic-driven stress. The impact of burnout is far-reaching, threatening the health of individual workers, the safety and quality of care our patients receive, and eroding the infrastructure of health care in general. Drivers of burnout include excessive quantity of work (nights, weekends, and acuity surges); excessive menial tasks; incivility, poor communication, and challenges to team success; and frequent moral distress and end-of-life issues. This article provides system-based practice and individual strategies to address these drivers and improve the well-being of our team and our patients.

COVID-19: Lessons Learned, Lessons Unlearned, Lessons for the Future.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinicians in many different ways. Clinicians have their own experiences and lessons that they have learned from their work in the pandemic. This article outlines a few lessons learned from the eyes of CHEST Critical Care Editorial Board members, namely practices which will be abandoned, novel practices to be adopted moving forward, and proposed changes to the health care system in general. In an attempt to start the discussion of how health care can grow from the pandemic, the editorial board members outline their thoughts on these lessons learned.