Reflections on a Crisis in Graduate Medical Education: The Closure of Hahnemann University Hospital.

In June 2019, Hahnemann University Hospital (HUH) in Philadelphia became the largest U.S. teaching hospital to announce its closure and the closure of all of its graduate medical education (GME) programs, which displaced more than 550 residents, fellows, and other trainees. In addition to the displaced trainees, the HUH closure involved many stakeholders at both the closing hospital and hospitals willing to accept transferred residents and fellows-program directors and coordinators, designated institutional officials (DIOs), and hospital executives-as well as the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the National Resident Matching Program, and other organizations. Given the rarity of such events, those involved had little experience or expertise in dealing with the closure of so many GME programs at one time. In this Invited Commentary, the DIOs of HUH and 4 other area teaching hospitals detail their experiences working to find new training opportunities for the displaced residents and fellows, discussing lessons learned and providing recommendations to prepare for any future teaching hospital closures. Stakeholder organizations should work together to develop a "playbook" for use during future closures so that the chaos that occurred this time can be avoided.

A Case for Change in Adult Critical Care Training for Physicians in the United States: A White Paper Developed by the Critical Care as a Specialty Task Force of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVES: In the United States, physician training in Critical Care Medicine has developed as a subspecialty of different primary boards, despite significant commonality in knowledge and skills. The Society of Critical Care Medicine appointed a multidisciplinary Task Force to examine alternative approaches for future training. DESIGN: The Task Force reviewed the literature and conducted informal discussions with key stakeholders. Specific topics reviewed included the history of critical care training, commonalities among subspecialties, developments since a similar review in 2004, international experience, quality patient care, and financial and workforce issues. MAIN RESULTS: The Task Force believes that options for future training include establishment of a 1) primary specialty of critical care; 2) unified fellowship and certification process; or 3) unified certification process with separate fellowship programs within the current specialties versus 4) maintaining multiple specialty-based fellowship programs and certification processes. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Changing the current Critical Care Medicine training paradigms may benefit trainees and patient care. 2) Multiple pathways into critical care training for all interested trainees are desirable for meeting future intensivist workforce demands. 3) The current subspecialties within separate boards are not "distinct and well-defined field[s] of medical practice" per the American Board of Medical Specialties. Recommendations for first steps are as follows: 1) as the society representing multidisciplinary critical care, the Society of Critical Care Medicine has an opportunity to organize a meeting of all stakeholders to discuss the issues regarding Critical Care Medicine training and consider cooperative approaches for the future. 2) A common Critical Care Medicine examination, possibly with a small percentage of base-specialty-specific questions, should be considered. 3) Institutions with multiple Critical Care Medicine fellowship programs should consider developing joint, multidisciplinary training curricula. 4) The boards that offer Critical Care Medicine examinations, along with national critical care societies, should consider ways to shorten training time.

Critical Care Delivery: The Importance of Process of Care and ICU Structure to Improved Outcomes: An Update From the American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force on Models of Critical Care.

In 2001, the Society of Critical Care Medicine published practice model guidelines that focused on the delivery of critical care and the roles of different ICU team members. An exhaustive review of the additional literature published since the last guideline has demonstrated that both the structure and process of care in the ICU are important for achieving optimal patient outcomes. Since the publication of the original guideline, several authorities have recognized that improvements in the processes of care, ICU structure, and the use of quality improvement science methodologies can beneficially impact patient outcomes and reduce costs. Herein, we summarize findings of the American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force on Models of Critical Care: 1) An intensivist-led, high-performing, multidisciplinary team dedicated to the ICU is an integral part of effective care delivery; 2) Process improvement is the backbone of achieving high-quality ICU outcomes; 3) Standardized protocols including care bundles and order sets to facilitate measurable processes and outcomes should be used and further developed in the ICU setting; and 4) Institutional support for comprehensive quality improvement programs as well as tele-ICU programs should be provided.

Entrustable professional activities and curricular milestones for fellowship training in pulmonary and critical care medicine: executive summary from the Multi-Society Working Group.

Assessment of graduate medical trainee progress via the accomplishment of competency milestones is an important element of the Next Accreditation System of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. This article summarizes the findings of a multisociety working group that was tasked with creating the entrustable professional activities and curricular milestones for fellowship training in pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and combined programs. Using the Delphi process, experienced medical educators from the American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors reached consensus on the detailed curricular content and expected skill set of graduates of these programs. These are now available to trainees and program directors for the purposes of curriculum design, review, and trainee assessment.

Entrustable professional activities and curricular milestones for fellowship training in pulmonary and critical care medicine: report of a multisociety working group.

This article describes the curricular milestones and entrustable professional activities for trainees in pulmonary, critical care, or combined fellowship programs. Under the Next Accreditation System of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), curricular milestones compose the curriculum or learning objectives for training in these fields. Entrustable professional activities represent the outcomes of training, the activities that society and professional peers can expect fellowship graduates to be able to perform unsupervised. These curricular milestones and entrustable professional activities are the products of a consensus process from a multidisciplinary committee of medical educators representing the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), the American Thoracic Society, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors. After consensus was achieved using the Delphi process, the document was revised with input from the sponsoring societies and program directors. The resulting lists can serve as a roadmap and destination for trainees, program directors, and educators. Together with the reporting milestones, they will help mark trainees' progress in the mastery of the six ACGME core competencies of graduate medical education.

Multisociety task force recommendations of competencies in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine.

RATIONALE: Numerous accrediting organizations are calling for competency-based medical education that would help define specific specialties and serve as a foundation for ongoing assessment throughout a practitioner's career. Pulmonary Medicine and Critical Care Medicine are two distinct subspecialties, yet many individual physicians have expertise in both because of overlapping content. Establishing specific competencies for these subspecialties identifies educational goals for trainees and guides practitioners through their lifelong learning. OBJECTIVES: To define specific competencies for graduates of fellowships in Pulmonary Medicine and Internal Medicine-based Critical Care. METHODS: A Task Force composed of representatives from key stakeholder societies convened to identify and define specific competencies for both disciplines. Beginning with a detailed list of existing competencies from diverse sources, the Task Force categorized each item into one of six core competency headings. Each individual item was reviewed by committee members individually, in group meetings, and conference calls. Nominal group methods were used for most items to retain the views and opinions of the minority perspective. Controversial items underwent additional whole group discussions with iterative modified-Delphi techniques. Consensus was ultimately determined by a simple majority vote. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Task Force identified and defined 327 specific competencies for Internal Medicine-based Critical Care and 276 for Pulmonary Medicine, each with a designation as either: (1) relevant, but competency is not essential or (2) competency essential to the specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Specific competencies in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine can be identified and defined using a multisociety collaborative approach. These recommendations serve as a starting point and set the stage for future modification to facilitate maximum quality of care as the specialties evolve.

Dexmedetomidine infusion as adjunctive therapy to benzodiazepines for acute alcohol withdrawal.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens successfully treated with adjunctive dexmedetomidine. CASE SUMMARY: A 30-year-old man with a history of alcohol abuse was admitted to the general medical unit because of altered mental status and agitation. He was initially treated for alcohol withdrawal with benzodiazepines; his condition then deteriorated and he was transferred to the intensive care unit. Because of the patient's poor response to benzodiazepines (oxazepam and lorazepam, with midazolam the last one used), intravenous dexmedetomidine was started at an initial dose of 0.2 microg/kg/h and titrated to 0.7 microg/kg/h to the patient's comfort. Midazolam was subsequently tapered to discontinuation due to excessive sedation. In the intensive care unit, the patient's symptoms remained controlled with use of dexmedetomidine alone. He remained in the intensive care unit for 40 hours; dexmedetomidine was then tapered to discontinuation and the patient was transferred back to the general medical unit on oral oxazepam and thiamine, which had been started in the emergency department. He was discharged after 5 days. DISCUSSION: A review of the PubMed database (1989-2007) failed to identify any other instances of dexmedetomidine having been used as the principal agent to treat alcohol withdrawal. The use of sedative to treat delirium tremens is well documented, with benzodiazepines being the agents of choice. The clinical utility of benzodiazepines is limited by their stimulation of the gamma-aminobutyric acid receptors, an effect not shared by dexmedetomidine, a central alpha(2)-receptor agonist that induces a state of cooperative sedation and does not suppress respiratory drive. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with delirium tremens, dexmedetomidine should be considered as an option for primary treatment. This case illustrates the need for further studies to investigate other potential uses for dexmedetomidine.

Effectiveness of medical resident education in mechanical ventilation.

Specific methods of mechanical ventilation management reduce mortality and lower health care costs. However, in the face of a predicted deficit of intensivists, it is unclear whether residency programs are training internists to provide effective care for patients who require mechanical ventilation. To evaluate these educational outcomes, we administered a validated 19-item case-based test and survey to resident physicians at 31 diverse U.S. internal medicine residency programs nationwide. Of 347 senior residents, 259 (75%) responded. The mean test score was 74% correct (SD, 14%; range, 37 to 100%). Important items representing evidence-based standards of critical care answered incorrectly were as follows: use of appropriate tidal volume in the acute respiratory distress syndrome (48% incorrect), identifying a patient ready for a weaning trial (38% incorrect), and recognizing indication for noninvasive ventilation (27% incorrect). Most accurately identified pneumothorax (86% correct) and increased intrathoracic positive end-expiratory pressure (93% correct). Better scores were associated with "closed" versus "open" intensive care unit organization (76 versus 71% correct, p = 0.001), resident perception of greater versus lesser ventilator knowledge (79 versus 71% correct, p = 0.001), and graduation from a U.S. versus international medical school (75 versus 69% correct, p = 0.033). Although overall training satisfaction correlated strongly with program use of learning objectives (r = 0.89, p < 0.0001), only 46% reported being satisfied with their mechanical ventilation training. We conclude that senior residents may not be gaining essential evidence-based knowledge needed to provide effective care for patients who require mechanical ventilation. Residency programs should emphasize evidence-based learning objectives to guide mechanical ventilation instruction.