Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rapid Sequence Intubation in the Critically Ill Adult Patient.

RATIONALE: Controversies and practice variations exist related to the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management of the airway during rapid sequence intubation (RSI). OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations on pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic topics related to RSI. DESIGN: A guideline panel of 20 Society of Critical Care Medicine members with experience with RSI and emergency airway management met virtually at least monthly from the panel's inception in 2018 through 2020 and face-to-face at the 2020 Critical Care Congress. The guideline panel included pharmacists, physicians, a nurse practitioner, and a respiratory therapist with experience in emergency medicine, critical care medicine, anesthesiology, and prehospital medicine; consultation with a methodologist and librarian was available. A formal conflict of interest policy was followed and enforced throughout the guidelines-development process. METHODS: Panelists created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) questions and voted to select the most clinically relevant questions for inclusion in the guideline. Each question was assigned to a pair of panelists, who refined the PICO wording and reviewed the best available evidence using predetermined search terms. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework was used throughout and recommendations of "strong" or "conditional" were made for each PICO question based on quality of evidence and panel consensus. Recommendations were provided when evidence was actionable; suggestions, when evidence was equivocal; and best practice statements, when the benefits of the intervention outweighed the risks, but direct evidence to support the intervention did not exist. RESULTS: From the original 35 proposed PICO questions, 10 were selected. The RSI guideline panel issued one recommendation (strong, low-quality evidence), seven suggestions (all conditional recommendations with moderate-, low-, or very low-quality evidence), and two best practice statements. The panel made two suggestions for a single PICO question and did not make any suggestions for one PICO question due to lack of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Using GRADE principles, the interdisciplinary panel found substantial agreement with respect to the evidence supporting recommendations for RSI. The panel also identified literature gaps that might be addressed by future research.

Flow-Sizing Critical Care Resources.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the factors affecting critical care capacity and how critical care organizations (CCOs) within academic centers in the U.S. flow-size critical care resources under normal operations, strain, and surge conditions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, federal agency and American Hospital Association reports, and previous CCO survey results were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies and reports of critical care bed capacity and utilization within CCOs and in the United States were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: The Academic Leaders in the Critical Care Medicine Task Force established regular conference calls to reach a consensus on the approach of CCOs to "flow-sizing" critical care services. DATA SYNTHESIS: The approach of CCOs to "flow-sizing" critical care is outlined. The vertical (relation to institutional resources, e.g., space allocation, equipment, personnel redistribution) and horizontal (interdepartmental, e.g., emergency department, operating room, inpatient floors) integration of critical care delivery (ICUs, rapid response) for healthcare organizations and the methods by which CCOs flow-size critical care during normal operations, strain, and surge conditions are described. The advantages, barriers, and recommendations for the rapid and efficient scaling of critical care operations via a CCO structure are explained. Comprehensive guidance and resources for the development of "flow-sizing" capability by a CCO within a healthcare organization are provided. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and summarized the fundamental principles affecting critical care capacity. The taskforce highlighted the advantages of the CCO governance model to achieve rapid and cost-effective "flow-sizing" of critical care services and provide recommendations and resources to facilitate this capability. The relevance of a comprehensive approach to "flow-sizing" has become particularly relevant in the wake of the latest COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the growing risks of another extreme epidemic, planning for adequate capacity to confront the next critical care crisis is urgent.

Critical Care and Postoperative Management of the First Human Long Segment Orthotopic Tracheal Transplantation.

To outline the postoperative management of a long segment tracheal transplant in the ICU setting. DESIGN: The recipient required reconstruction of a long segment tracheal defect from a previous prolonged intubation. A male donor was chosen for a female recipient to enable analysis of the reepithelialization kinetics using fluorescence in situ hybridization to analyze the source of the new ciliated epithelium. SETTING: Transplant ICU at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY. PATIENTS: The female recipient was previously intubated for an asthma exacerbation and subsequently developed long segment tracheal stenosis and failed conventional management including dilatation, stenting, and six major surgical procedures rendering her chronically tracheostomy-dependent. The male donor suffered a massive subarachnoid hemorrhage and was subsequently pronounced brain dead. Organ procurement occurred after obtaining appropriate consent from the patient's family. INTERVENTIONS: The patient received a deceased donor tracheal allograft that included the thyroid gland, parathyroid glands, and the muscularis of the cervical and thoracic esophagus. Triple therapy immunosuppression (tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and a corticosteroid taper) was maintained. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The patient was initially managed postoperatively with deep sedation on ventilator via armored/reinforced endotracheal tube placed through a small tracheostomy located along the superior tracheal anastomosis. Serial bronchoscopies were performed for graft assessment, pulmonary toilet, and biopsies, which initially showed acute inflammatory changes but no features of acute allograft rejection. A euthyroid state was maintained but hypercalcemia developed. CONCLUSIONS: The ICU management of this first long segment orthotopic tracheal transplant required a multidisciplinary approach involving critical care, otolaryngology, transplant surgery, interventional pulmonary, endocrinology, 1:1 nursing throughout the recipient's transplant ICU stay, and respiratory therapy that resulted in the successful establishment of a viable tracheal airway and heralded the end of chronic tracheostomy dependence.

Regionalization of Critical Care in the United States: Current State and Proposed Framework From the Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine Task Force of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVES: The Society of Critical Care Medicine convened its Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine taskforce on February 22, 2016, during the 45th Critical Care Congress to develop a series of consensus papers with toolkits for advancing critical care organizations in North America. The goal of this article is to propose a framework based on the expert opinions of critical care organization leaders and their responses to a survey, for current and future critical care organizations, and their leadership in the health system to design and implement successful regionalization for critical care in their regions. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Members of the workgroup convened monthly via teleconference with the following objectives: to 1) develop and analyze a regionalization survey tool for 23 identified critical care organizations in the United States, 2) assemble relevant medical literature accessed using Medline search, 3) use a consensus of expert opinions to propose the framework, and 4) create groups to write the subsections and assemble the final product. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The most prevalent challenges for regionalization in critical care organizations remain a lack of a strong central authority to regulate and manage the system as well as a lack of necessary infrastructure, as described more than a decade ago. We provide a framework and outline a nontechnical approach that the health system and their critical care medicine leadership can adopt after considering their own structure, complexity, business operations, culture, and the relationships among their individual hospitals. Transforming the current state of regionalization into a coordinated, accountable system requires a critical assessment of administrative and clinical challenges and barriers. Systems thinking, business planning and control, and essential infrastructure development are critical for assisting critical care organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Under the value-based paradigm, the goals are operational efficiency and patient outcomes. Health systems that can align strategy and operations to assist the referral hospitals with implementing regionalization will be better positioned to regionalize critical care effectively.

Emergency physicians in critical care: where are we now?

OBJECTIVE: Prior to 2011, emergency physicians who completed critical care (CC) fellowship were unable to obtain board certification in the United States. Three pathways for CC board certification have since been established. This study explores the training, practice, and perceived challenges of emergency medicine/critical care fellows and emergency medicine/critical care physicians in the United States. METHODS: Anonymous institutional review board-approved survey distributed via email through an online survey engine from April to December 2016. Participants were recruited through national organizations and independent interest groups. Emergency physicians who were in CC fellowship or had completed a CC fellowship and were in practice in the United States participated voluntarily. RESULTS: Of the 162 respondents, 152 were included (92 physicians, 60 fellows). Eighty-nine percent ranged from 31-50 years old. Among fellows, 90% desired a dual discipline practice. Among physicians, 63% split their time between the emergency department and ICU. Seventy-one percent of physicians reported working in academic institutions. Among physicians engaged in a dual practice, mean full-time equivalent (±SD) devoted to the ED was 0.37 (±0.22), mean full-time equivalent for ICU was 0.47 (±0.22), and mean full-time equivalent for protected academic time was 0.28 (±0.19). Emergency medicine/critical care fellows and emergency medicine/critical care physicians identified numerous challenges associated with duality. CONCLUSIONS: Since the advent of critical care board certification for emergency physicians in the United States, there has been an increasing number of emergency physicians pursuing CC fellowships and achieving CC board certification. Emergency medicine/critical care physicians are venturing into a variety of practice models, demonstrating that the employment landscape remains plastic. Not unexpectedly, emergency medicine/critical care fellows and emergency medicine/critical care physicians are encountering challenges intrinsic to their duality.

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.

Workforce, Workload, and Burnout Among Intensivists and Advanced Practice Providers: A Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess-by literature review and expert consensus-workforce, workload, and burnout considerations among intensivists and advanced practice providers. DESIGN: Data were synthesized from monthly expert consensus and literature review. SETTING: Workforce and Workload section workgroup of the Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine Task Force. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Multidisciplinary care teams led by intensivists are an essential component of critical care delivery. Advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) are progressively being integrated into ICU practice models. The ever-increasing number of patients with complex, life-threatening diseases, concentration of ICU beds in few centralized hospitals, expansion of specialty ICU services, and desire for 24/7 availability have contributed to growing intensivist staffing concerns. Such staffing challenges may negatively impact practitioner wellness, team perception of care quality, time available for teaching, and length of stay when the patient to intensivist ratio is greater than or equal to 15. Enhanced team communication and reduction of practice variation are important factors for improved patient outcomes. A diverse workforce adds value and enrichment to the overall work environment. Formal succession planning for ICU leaders is crucial to the success of critical care organizations. Implementation of a continuous 24/7 ICU coverage care model in high-acuity, high-volume centers should be based on patient-centered outcomes. High levels of burnout syndrome are common among intensivists. Prospective analyses of interventions to decrease burnout within the ICU setting are limited. However, organizational interventions are felt to be more effective than those directed at individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care workforce and staffing models are myriad and based on several factors including local culture and resources, ICU organization, and strategies to reduce burden on the ICU provider workforce. Prospective studies to assess and avoid the burnout syndrome among intensivists and advanced practice providers are needed.

Critical Care Organizations: Building and Integrating Academic Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Academic medical centers in North America are expanding their missions from the traditional triad of patient care, research, and education to include the broader issue of healthcare delivery improvement. In recent years, integrated Critical Care Organizations have developed within academic centers to better meet the challenges of this broadening mission. The goal of this article was to provide interested administrators and intensivists with the proper resources, lines of communication, and organizational approach to accomplish integration and Critical Care Organization formation effectively. DESIGN: The Academic Critical Care Organization Building section workgroup of the taskforce established regular monthly conference calls to reach consensus on the development of a toolkit utilizing methods proven to advance the development of their own academic Critical Care Organizations. Relevant medical literature was reviewed by literature search. Materials from federal agencies and other national organizations were accessed through the Internet. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine convened a taskforce entitled "Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine" on February 22, 2016 at the 45th Critical Care Congress using the expertise of successful leaders of advanced governance Critical Care Organizations in North America to develop a toolkit for advancing Critical Care Organizations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Key elements of an academic Critical Care Organization are outlined. The vital missions of multidisciplinary patient care, safety, and quality are linked to the research, education, and professional development missions that enhance the value of such organizations. Core features, benefits, barriers, and recommendations for integration of academic programs within Critical Care Organizations are described. Selected readings and resources to successfully implement the recommendations are provided. Communication with medical school and hospital leadership is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: We present the rationale for critical care programs to transition to integrated Critical Care Organizations within academic medical centers and provide recommendations and resources to facilitate this transition and foster Critical Care Organization effectiveness and future success.

Critical Care Organizations in Academic Medical Centers in North America: A Descriptive Report.

OBJECTIVES: With the exception of a few single-center descriptive reports, data on critical care organizations are relatively sparse. The objectives of our study were to determine the structure, governance, and experience to date of established critical care organizations in North American academic medical centers. DESIGN: A 46-item survey questionnaire was electronically distributed using Survey Monkey to the leadership of 27 identified critical care organizations in the United States and Canada between September 2014 and February 2015. A critical care organization had to be headed by a physician and have primary governance over the majority, if not all, of the ICUs in the medical center. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We received 24 responses (89%). The majority of the critical care organizations (83%) were called departments, centers, systems, or operations committees. Approximately two thirds of respondents were from larger (> 500 beds) urban institutions, and nearly 80% were primary university medical centers. On average, there were six ICUs per academic medical center with a mean of four ICUs under critical care organization governance. In these ICUs, intensivists were present in-house 24/7 in 49%; advanced practice providers in 63%; hospitalists in 21%; and telemedicine coverage in 14%. Nearly 60% of respondents indicated that they had a separate hospital budget to support data management and reporting, oversight of their ICUs, and rapid response teams. The transition from the traditional model of ICUs within departmentally controlled services or divisions to a critical care organization was described as gradual in 50% and complete in only 25%. Nearly 90% indicated that their critical care organization governance structure was either moderately or highly effective; a similar number suggested that their critical care organizations were evolving with increasing domain and financial control of the ICUs at their respective institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey of the very few critical care organizations in North American academic medical centers showed that the governance models of critical care organizations vary and continue to evolve. Additional studies are warranted to improve our understanding of the factors that can foster the growth of critical care organizations and how they can be effective.

Critical care medicine in the United States: addressing the intensivist shortage and image of the specialty.

Intensivists are increasingly needed to care for the critically ill and manage ICUs as ICU beds, utilization, acuity of illness, complexity of care and costs continue to rise. However, there is a nationwide shortage of intensivists that has occurred despite years of well publicized warnings of an impending workforce crisis from specialty societies and the federal government. The magnitude of the intensivist shortfall, however, is difficult to determine because there are many perspectives of optimal ICU administration, patient coverage and intensivist availability and a lack of national data on intensivist practices. Nevertheless, the intensivist shortfall is quite real as evidenced by the alternative solutions that hospitals are deploying to provide care for their critically ill patients. In the midst of these manpower struggles, the critical care environment is dynamically changing and becoming more stressful. Severe hospital bed availability and fiscal constraints are forcing ICUs to alter their approaches to triage, throughput and unit staffing. National and local organizations are mandating that hospitals comply with resource intensive and arguably unproven initiatives to monitor and improve patient safety and quality, and informatics systems. Lastly, there is an ongoing sense of professional dissatisfaction among intensivists and a lack of public awareness that critical care medicine is even a distinct specialty. This article offers proposals to increase the adult intensivist workforce through expansion and enhancements of internal medicine based critical care training programs, incentives for recent graduates to enter the critical care medicine field, suggestions for improvements in the critical care profession and workplace to encourage senior intensivists to remain in the field, proactive marketing of critical care, and expanded engagement by the critical care societies in the challenges facing intensivists.

Critical care issues in oncological surgery patients.

As life expectancy increases and advances in cancer treatment more often convert deadly conditions into more chronic diseases, the surgical intensivist can expect to be faced with greater numbers of oncology patients undergoing aggressive surgical treatments for curative intent, prolonging survival, or primarily palliation by alleviating obstruction, infection, bleeding, or pain. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are a paradigm for the emerging field of multimodal aggressive oncological surgery. This article describes the CRS/HIPEC technique, and discusses the most common postoperative complications and critical care issues in these patients, including anastomotic leaks, intestinal perforation, abscesses, and intra-abdominal bleeding. The leading cause of mortality is sepsis leading to multiple organ failure, and such patients are at particularly higher risk due to the extensive CRS and HIPEC. The intensivist must be vigilant to ensure that source control is not overlooked. This process is a very difficult one, made even more challenging by the blunting of physiologic responses and the frequent absence of the classic acute abdomen.

The pulmonary artery catheter in anesthesia practice in 2007: an historical overview with emphasis on the past 6 years.

The pulmonary artery catheter has been widely used in anesthesiology and critical care medicine. Until recently, only retrospective or relatively weak prospective studies examining its effect on outcome had been performed. Over the past 6 years, however, a number of well-designed prospective trials and statistically sound retrospective studies have been completed. All of these show no benefit and some even reveal a potential for increased morbidity. Reasons for this device's inability to improve outcome are numerous, including wrong patient selection and misinterpretation, but the most impressive and convincing evidence is that filling pressures measured from the catheter, particularly the pulmonary artery "wedge" pressure, have no physiologic value. The wedge pressure has been shown to not correlate with other accepted methods of determining left ventricular filling or volume or intravascular volume and also does not help to generate cardiac function curves. Therefore, knowledge of it may actually lead to incorrect management more frequently than not.