A Review and Discussion of Full-Time Equivalency and Appropriate Compensation Models for an Adult Intensivist in the United States Across Various Base Specialties.

OBJECTIVES: Physicians with training in anesthesiology, emergency medicine, internal medicine, neurology, and surgery may gain board certification in critical care medicine upon completion of fellowship training. These clinicians often only spend a portion of their work effort in the ICU. Other work efforts that benefit an ICU infrastructure, but do not provide billing opportunities, include education, research, and administrative duties. For employed or contracted physicians, there is no singular definition of what constitutes an intensive care full-time equivalent (FTE). Nevertheless, hospitals often consider FTEs in assessing hiring needs, salary, and eligibility for benefits. DATA SOURCES: Review of existing literature, expert opinion. STUDY SELECTION: Not applicable. DATA EXTRACTION: Not applicable. DATA SYNTHESIS: Not applicable. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how an FTE is calculated, and the fraction of an FTE to be assigned to a particular cost center, is therefore important for intensivists of different specialties, as many employment models assign salary and benefits to a base specialty department and not necessarily the ICU.

Electrocardiographic deep learning for predicting post-procedural mortality: a model development and validation study.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative risk assessments used in clinical practice are insufficient in their ability to identify risk for postoperative mortality. Deep-learning analysis of electrocardiography can identify hidden risk markers that can help to prognosticate postoperative mortality. We aimed to develop a prognostic model that accurately predicts postoperative mortality in patients undergoing medical procedures and who had received preoperative electrocardiographic diagnostic testing. METHODS: In a derivation cohort of preoperative patients with available electrocardiograms (ECGs) from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Los Angeles, CA, USA) between Jan 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2019, a deep-learning algorithm was developed to leverage waveform signals to discriminate postoperative mortality. We randomly split patients (8:1:1) into subsets for training, internal validation, and final algorithm test analyses. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values in the hold-out test dataset and in two external hospital cohorts and compared with the established Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) score. The primary outcome was post-procedural mortality across three health-care systems. FINDINGS: 45 969 patients had a complete ECG waveform image available for at least one 12-lead ECG performed within the 30 days before the procedure date (59 975 inpatient procedures and 112 794 ECGs): 36 839 patients in the training dataset, 4549 in the internal validation dataset, and 4581 in the internal test dataset. In the held-out internal test cohort, the algorithm discriminates mortality with an AUC value of 0·83 (95% CI 0·79-0·87), surpassing the discrimination of the RCRI score with an AUC of 0·67 (0·61-0·72). The algorithm similarly discriminated risk for mortality in two independent US health-care systems, with AUCs of 0·79 (0·75-0·83) and 0·75 (0·74-0·76), respectively. Patients determined to be high risk by the deep-learning model had an unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of 8·83 (5·57-13·20) for postoperative mortality compared with an unadjusted OR of 2·08 (0·77-3·50) for postoperative mortality for RCRI scores of more than 2. The deep-learning algorithm performed similarly for patients undergoing cardiac surgery (AUC 0·85 [0·77-0·92]), non-cardiac surgery (AUC 0·83 [0·79-0·88]), and catheterisation or endoscopy suite procedures (AUC 0·76 [0·72-0·81]). INTERPRETATION: A deep-learning algorithm interpreting preoperative ECGs can improve discrimination of postoperative mortality. The deep-learning algorithm worked equally well for risk stratification of cardiac surgeries, non-cardiac surgeries, and catheterisation laboratory procedures, and was validated in three independent health-care systems. This algorithm can provide additional information to clinicians making the decision to perform medical procedures and stratify the risk of future complications. FUNDING: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Current practices in nutrition therapy in cardiac surgery patients: An international multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac surgery patients with a prolonged stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk for acquired malnutrition. Medical nutrition therapy practices for cardiac surgery patients are unknown. The objective of this study is to describe the current nutrition practices in critically ill cardiac surgery patients worldwide. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study in 13 international ICUs involving mechanically ventilated cardiac surgery patients with an ICU stay of at least 72 h. Collected data included the energy and protein prescription, type of and time to the initiation of nutrition, and actual quantity of energy and protein delivered (maximum: 12 days). RESULTS: Among 237 enrolled patients, enteral nutrition (EN) was started, on average, 45 h after ICU admission (range, 0-277 h; site average, 53 [range, 10-79 h]). EN was prescribed for 187 (79%) patients and combined EN and parenteral nutrition in 33 (14%). Overall, patients received 44.2% (0.0%-117.2%) of the prescribed energy and 39.7% (0.0%-122.8%) of the prescribed protein. At a site level, the average nutrition adequacy was 47.5% (30.5%-78.6%) for energy and 43.6% (21.7%-76.6%) for protein received from all nutrition sources. CONCLUSION: Critically ill cardiac surgery patients with prolonged ICU stay experience significant delays in starting EN and receive low levels of energy and protein. There exists tremendous variability in site performance, whereas achieving optimal nutrition performance is doable.

Guidelines and principles for the care of the cardiothoracic transplant patient in the intensive care unit.

Heart and lung transplant recipients require care provided by clinicians from multiple different specialties, each contributing unique expertise and perspective. The period the patient spends in the intensive care unit is one of the most critical times in the perioperative trajectory. Various organizational models of intensive care exist, including those led by intensivists, surgeons, transplant cardiologists, and pulmonologists. Coordinating timely efficient intensive care is an essential and logistically difficult goal. The present work product of the American Society of Transplantation's Thoracic and Critical Care Community of Practice, Critical Care Task Force outlines operational guidelines and principles that may be applied in different organizational models to optimize the delivery of intensive care for the cardiothoracic organ recipient.

Outcomes of Extremely Prolonged (> 50 d) Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support.

OBJECTIVES: There has been a sustained increase in the utilization of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) over the last decade, further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. We set out to describe our institutional experience with extremely prolonged (> 50 d) venovenous ECMO support for recovery or bridge to lung transplant candidacy in patients with acute respiratory failure. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A large tertiary urban care center. PATIENTS: Patients 18 years or older receiving venovenous ECMO support for greater than 50 days, with initial cannulation between January 2018 and January 2022. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred thirty patients were placed on venovenous ECMO during the study period. Of these, 12 received prolonged (> 50 d) venovenous ECMO support. Eleven patients (92%) suffered from adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to COVID-19, while one patient with prior bilateral lung transplant suffered from ARDS secondary to bacterial pneumonia. The median age of patients was 39 years (interquartile range [IQR], 35-51 yr). The median duration of venovenous ECMO support was 94 days (IQR, 70-128 d), with a maximum of 180 days. Median time from intubation to cannulation was 5 days (IQR, 2-14 d). Nine patients (75%) were successfully mobilized while on venovenous ECMO support. Successful weaning of venovenous ECMO support occurred in eight patients (67%); 6 (50%) were bridged to lung transplantation and 2 (17%) were bridged to recovery. Of those successfully weaned, seven patients (88%) were discharged from the hospital. All seven patients discharged from the hospital were alive 6 months post-decannulation; 83% (5/6) with sufficient follow-up time were alive 1-year after decannulation. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that extremely prolonged venovenous ECMO support to allow native lung recovery or optimization for lung transplantation may be a feasible strategy in select critically ill patients, further supporting the expanded utilization of venovenous ECMO for refractory respiratory failure.

Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Had a Higher Chance of In-Hospital Death If Treated With High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Before Intubation.

BACKGROUND: The impact of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) on outcomes of patients with respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. We sought to assess whether exposure to HFNC before intubation was associated with successful extubation and in-hospital mortality compared to patients receiving intubation only. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study examined patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure from March 2020 to March 2021 who required HFNC, intubation, or both. Data were abstracted from the electronic health record. Use and duration of HFNC and intubation were examined' as well as demographics and clinical characteristics. We assessed the association between HFNC before intubation (versus without) and chance of successful extubation and in-hospital death using Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, prior chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, HCO 3 , CO 2 , oxygen-saturation-to-inspired-oxygen (S:F) ratio, pulse, respiratory rate, temperature, and length of stay before intervention. RESULTS: A total of n = 440 patients were identified, of whom 311 (70.7%) received HFNC before intubation, and 129 (29.3%) were intubated without prior use of HFNC. Patients who received HFNC before intubation had a higher chance of in-hospital death (hazard ratio [HR], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-4.05). No difference was found in the chance of successful extubation between the 2 groups (0.70, 0.41-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with respiratory failure from COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation, patients receiving HFNC before intubation had a higher chance of in-hospital death. Decisions on initial respiratory support modality should weigh the risks of intubation with potential increased mortality associated with HFNC.

Intensivists' perceptions of what is missing in their compassionate care during interactions in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: We proposed that the behaviors that demonstrate compassionate care in the intensive care unit (ICU) can be self-assessed and improved among ICU clinicians. Literature showing views of intensivists about their own compassionate care attitudes is missing. METHODS: This was an observational, prospective, cross-sectional study. We surveyed clinicians who are members of professional societies of intensive care using the modified Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale® (SCCCS) about their self-reported compassionate care. A modified SCCCS instrument was disseminated via an email sent to the members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine between March and June 2021. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-three clinicians completed the survey from a cohort of 1000 members who responded (32.3% response rate). The majority (54%) of respondents were male physicians of 49 (+ - 10 SD) years of age and 19 (12 + - SD) years in practice. The mean SCCCS was 88.5 (out of 100) with an average score of 8 for each question (out of 10), showing a high self-assessed physician rating of their compassionate care in the ICU. There was a positive association with age and years in practice with a higher score, especially for women ages 30-50 years (P = 0.03). Years in practice was also independently associated with greater compassion scores (p < 0.001). Lower scores were given to behaviors that reflect understanding perspectives of families and patients and showing caring and sensitivity. In contrast, the top scores were given to behaviors that included conducting family discussions and showing respect. CONCLUSION: Physicians in the ICU self-score high in compassionate care, especially if they are more experienced, female, and older. Self-identified areas that need improvement are the humanistic qualities requiring sensitivity, such as cognitive empathy, which involves perspective-taking, reflective listening, asking open-ended questions, and understanding the patient's context and worldview. These can be addressed in further clinical and ICU quality improvement initiatives.

It's Not Just the Prices: Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing for Initiation of Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation at Three International Sites-A Case Review.

The United States spends more for intensive care units (ICUs) than do other high-income countries. We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to analyze ICU costs for initiation of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) for respiratory failure to estimate how much of the higher ICU costs at 1 US site can be attributed to the higher prices paid to ICU personnel, and how much is caused by the US site's use of a higher cost staffing model. We accompanied our TDABC approach with narrative review of the ECMO programs, at Cedars-Sinai (Los Angeles), Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière (Paris), and The Alfred Hospital (Melbourne) from 2017 to 2019. Our primary outcome was daily ECMO cost, and we hypothesized that cost differences among the hospitals could be explained by the efficiencies and skill mix of involved clinicians and prices paid for personnel, equipment, and consumables. Our results are presented relative to Los Angeles' total personnel cost per VV ECMO patient day, indexed at 100. Los Angeles' total indexed daily cost of care was 147 (personnel: 100, durables: 5, and disposables: 42). Paris' total cost was 39 (26% of Los Angeles) (personnel: 12, durables: 1, and disposables: 26). Melbourne's total cost was 53 (36% of Los Angeles) (personnel: 32, durables: 2, and disposables: 19) (rounded). The higher personnel prices at Los Angeles explained only 26% of its much higher personnel costs than Paris, and 21% relative to Melbourne. Los Angeles' higher staffing levels accounted for 49% (36%), and its costlier mix of personnel accounted for 12% (10%) of its higher personnel costs relative to Paris (Melbourne). Unadjusted discharge rates for ECMO patients were 46% in Los Angeles (46%), 56% in Paris, and 52% in Melbourne. We found that personnel salaries explained only 30% of the higher personnel costs at 1 Los Angeles hospital. Most of the cost differential was caused by personnel staffing intensity and mix. This study demonstrates how TDABC may be used in ICU administration to quantify the savings that 1 US hospital could achieve by delivering the same quality of care with fewer and less-costly mix of clinicians compared to a French and Australian site. Narrative reviews contextualized how the care models evolved at each site and helped identify potential barriers to change.

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.