Tele-Critical Care: An Update From the Society of Critical Care Medicine Tele-ICU Committee.

OBJECTIVES: In 2014, the Tele-ICU Committee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine published an article regarding the state of ICU telemedicine, one better defined today as tele-critical care. Given the rapid evolution in the field, the authors now provide an updated review. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched PubMed and OVID for peer-reviewed literature published between 2010 and 2018 related to significant developments in tele-critical care, including its prevalence, function, activity, and technologies. Search terms included electronic ICU, tele-ICU, critical care telemedicine, and ICU telemedicine with appropriate descriptors relevant to each sub-section. Additionally, information from surveys done by the Society of Critical Care Medicine was included given the relevance to the discussion and was referenced accordingly. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Tele-critical care continues to evolve in multiple domains, including organizational structure, technologies, expanded-use case scenarios, and novel applications. Insights have been gained in economic impact and human and organizational factors affecting tele-critical care delivery. Legislation and credentialing continue to significantly influence the pace of tele-critical care growth and adoption. CONCLUSIONS: Tele-critical care is an established mechanism to leverage critical care expertise to ICUs and beyond, but systematic research comparing different models, approaches, and technologies is still needed.

Respiratory Health in Migrant Populations: A Crisis Overlooked.

The crisis in the Middle East has raised awareness about the challenges encountered by migrant populations, in particular, health-care access and delivery. Similar challenges are encountered by migrant populations around the world, including those entering the United States as refugees and/or survivors of torture as well as Mexicans and other Latin Americans crossing the border. During the 2016 International American Thoracic Society Meeting held in San Francisco, California, a group of researchers and health-care providers discussed these challenges at a minisymposium devoted to the respiratory health of migrants. The discussion focused on the increased incidence of airway diseases among individuals migrating to more developed countries, the problems created by sleep disorders and their implications for cardiovascular and mental health, the challenges inherent in the control of infections in refugee populations, and the problems resulting from deportation. The group also discussed the potential impact of novel strategies made available by Internet-based technologies and how these strategies could be deployed to support worldwide efforts in assisting migrants and refugees, even in countries that find themselves in the direst circumstances. These presentations are summarized in this document, which is not meant to be exhaustive, but to improve awareness about the challenges confronted by migrants and their host nations regarding respiratory health-care access and delivery, and about the need for adequate investment of resources to better define these challenges through research and for the development of efficient strategies for intervention.

What factors do patients consider most important in making lung cancer screening decisions? Findings from a demonstration project conducted in the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: The National Lung Screening Trial recently reported that annual low-dose computed tomography screening is associated with decreased lung cancer mortality in high-risk smokers. This study sought to identify the factors patients consider important in making lung cancer screening (LCS) decisions, and explore variations by patient characteristics and LCS participation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This observational survey study evaluated the Minneapolis VA LCS Clinical Demonstration Project in which LCS-eligible Veterans (N=1388) were randomized to either Direct LCS Invitation (mailed with decision aid, N=926) or Usual Care (provider referral, N=462). We surveyed participants three months post-randomization (response rate 44%) and report the proportion of respondents rating eight decision-making factors (benefits, harms, and neutral factors) as important by condition, patient characteristics, and LCS completion. RESULTS: Overall, the most important factor was personal risk of lung cancer and the least important factor was health risks from LCS. The reported importance varied by patient characteristics, including smoking status, health status, and education level. Overall, the potential harms of LCS were reported less important than the benefits or the neutral decision-making factors. Exposure to Direct LCS Invitation (with decision aid) increased Veterans' attention to specific decision-making factors; compared to Usual Care respondents, a larger proportion of Direct LCS Invitation respondents rated the chance of false-positive results, LCS knowledge, LCS convenience, and anxiety as important. Those completing LCS considered screening harms less important, with the exception of incidental findings. CONCLUSION: Decision tools influence Veterans' perceptions about LCS decision-making factors. As the factors important to LCS decision making vary by patient characteristics, targeted materials for specific subgroups may be warranted. Attention should be paid to how LCS incidental findings are communicated.