Tackling Brain and Muscle Dysfunction in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Survivors: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop Report.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with long-term impairments in brain and muscle function that significantly impact the quality of life of those who survive the acute illness. The mechanisms underlying these impairments are not yet well understood, and evidence-based interventions to minimize the burden on patients remain unproven. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health assembled a workshop in April 2023 to review the state of the science regarding ARDS-associated brain and muscle dysfunction, to identify gaps in current knowledge, and to determine priorities for future investigation. The workshop included presentations by scientific leaders across the translational science spectrum and was open to the public as well as the scientific community. This report describes the themes discussed at the workshop as well as recommendations to advance the field toward the goal of improving the health and wellbeing of ARDS survivors.

Leveraging Implementation Science to Advance Environmental Justice Research and Achieve Health Equity through Neighborhood and Policy Interventions.

Environmental justice research is increasingly focused on community-engaged, participatory investigations that test interventions to improve health. Such research is primed for the use of implementation science-informed approaches to optimize the uptake and use of interventions proven to be effective. This review identifies synergies between implementation science and environmental justice with the goal of advancing both disciplines. Specifically, the article synthesizes the literature on neighborhood-, community-, and policy-level interventions in environmental health that address underlying structural determinants (e.g., structural racism) and social determinants of health. Opportunities to facilitate and scale the equitable implementation of evidence-based environmental health interventions are highlighted, using urban greening as an illustrative example. An environmental justice-focused version of the implementation science subway is provided, which highlights these principles: Remember and Reflect, Restore and Reclaim, and Reinvest. The review concludes with existing gaps and future directions to advance the science of implementation to promote environmental justice. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 45 is April 2024. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Gamification in Critical Care Education and Practice.

OBJECTIVES: To explore gamification as an alternative approach to healthcare education and its potential applications to critical care. DATA SOURCES: English language manuscripts addressing: 1) gamification theory and application in healthcare and critical care and 2) implementation science focused on the knowledge-to-practice gap were identified in Medline and PubMed databases (inception to 2023). STUDY SELECTION: Studies delineating gamification underpinnings, application in education or procedural mentoring, utilization for healthcare or critical care education and practice, and analyses of benefits or pitfalls in comparison to other educational or behavioral modification approaches. DATA EXTRACTION: Data indicated the key gamification tenets and the venues within which they were used to enhance knowledge, support continuing medical education, teach procedural skills, enhance decision-making, or modify behavior. DATA SYNTHESIS: Gamification engages learners in a visual and cognitive fashion using competitive approaches to enhance acquiring new knowledge or skills. While gamification may be used in a variety of settings, specific design elements may relate to the learning environment or learner styles. Additionally, solo and group gamification approaches demonstrate success and leverage adult learning theory elements in a low-stress and low-risk setting. The potential for gamification-driven behavioral modification to close the knowledge-to-practice gap and enable guideline and protocol compliance remains underutilized. CONCLUSIONS: Gamification offers the potential to substantially enhance how critical care professionals acquire and then implement new knowledge in a fashion that is more engaging and rewarding than traditional approaches. Accordingly, educational undertakings from courses to offerings at medical professional meetings may benefit from being gamified.

Gender and Pathways to Leadership in Academic Anesthesiology: A Qualitative Content Analysis of US Chairpersons' Curricula Vitae.

BACKGROUND: Women are underrepresented in medicine and academic anesthesiology, and especially in leadership positions. We sought to characterize career achievement milestones of female versus male academic anesthesiology chairs to understand possible gender-related differences in pathways to leadership. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational cross-sectional analysis. In November 2019, curricula vitae (CVs) were requested from then-current members of the US Association of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs. Data reflecting accomplishments up to the time of chair appointment were systematically extracted from CVs and analyzed using a mixed methods approach with qualitative content analysis supplemented by descriptive statistics and bivariate statistical testing. Missing data were not imputed. RESULTS: Seventy-two CVs were received from eligible individuals (response rate 67.3%). The respondent sample was 12.5% women (n = 9), 87.5% men (n = 63), and no transgender or nonbinary people; this is similar to the known gender balance in anesthesiology chairs in the United States. No statistically significant differences in objective markers of academic achievement at the time of chair appointment were evident for female versus male chairs, including time elapsed between the first faculty appointment and assumption of the chair role (median 25 vs 18 years, P = .06), number of publications at the time the chair was assumed (101 vs 69, P = .28), or proportion who had ever held a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant as principal investigator (44.4% vs 25.4%, 0.25). Four phenotypes of career paths were discernible in the data: the clinician-administrator, the educator, the investigator, and the well-rounded scholar; these did not differ by gender. CONCLUSIONS: Female chairpersons who were members of the Association of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs in the United States demonstrated similar patterns of academic achievement as compared to male chairpersons at the time the position of chair was assumed, suggesting that they were equally qualified for the role as compared to men. Four patterns of career achievements were evident in the chairperson group, suggesting multiple viable pathways to this leadership position.

Artificial Intelligence in Anesthetic Care: A Survey of Physician Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: This study explored physician anesthesiologists' knowledge, exposure, and perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) and their associations with attitudes and expectations regarding its use in clinical practice. The findings highlight the importance of understanding anesthesiologists' perspectives for the successful integration of AI into anesthesiology, as AI has the potential to revolutionize the field. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 27,056 US physician anesthesiologists was conducted to assess their knowledge, perceptions, and expectations regarding the use of AI in clinical practice. The primary outcome measured was attitude toward the use of AI in clinical practice, with scores of 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale indicating positive attitudes. The anticipated impact of AI on various aspects of professional work was measured using a 3-point Likert scale. Logistic regression was used to explore the relationship between participant responses and attitudes toward the use of AI in clinical practice. RESULTS: A 2021 survey of 27,056 US physician anesthesiologists received 1086 responses (4% response rate). Most respondents were male (71%), active clinicians (93%) under 45 (34%). A majority of anesthesiologists (61%) had some knowledge of AI and 48% had a positive attitude toward using AI in clinical practice. While most respondents believed that AI can improve health care efficiency (79%), timeliness (75%), and effectiveness (69%), they are concerned that its integration in anesthesiology could lead to a decreased demand for anesthesiologists (45%) and decreased earnings (45%). Within a decade, respondents expected AI would outperform them in predicting adverse perioperative events (83%), formulating pain management plans (67%), and conducting airway exams (45%). The absence of algorithmic transparency (60%), an ambiguous environment regarding malpractice (47%), and the possibility of medical errors (47%) were cited as significant barriers to the use of AI in clinical practice. Respondents indicated that their motivation to use AI in clinical practice stemmed from its potential to enhance patient outcomes (81%), lower health care expenditures (54%), reduce bias (55%), and boost productivity (53%). Variables associated with positive attitudes toward AI use in clinical practice included male gender (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; P < .001), 20+ years of experience (OR, 1.8; P < .01), higher AI knowledge (OR, 2.3; P = .01), and greater AI openness (OR, 10.6; P < .01). Anxiety about future earnings was associated with negative attitudes toward AI use in clinical practice (OR, 0.54; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding anesthesiologists' perspectives on AI is essential for the effective integration of AI into anesthesiology, as AI has the potential to revolutionize the field.

Racial and Ethnic Patient Care Disparities in Anesthesiology: History, Current State, and a Way Forward.

Disparities in patient care and outcomes are well-documented in medicine but have received comparatively less attention in anesthesiology. Those disparities linked to racial and ethnic identity are pervasive, with compelling evidence in operative anesthesiology, obstetric anesthesiology, pain medicine, and critical care. This narrative review presents an overview of disparities in perioperative patient care that is grounded in historical context followed by potential solutions for mitigating disparities and inequities.

Improving health equity through health care systems research.

OBJECTIVE: To describe health equity research priorities for health care delivery systems and delineate a research and action agenda that generates evidence-based solutions to persistent racial and ethnic inequities in health outcomes. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: This project was conducted as a component of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) stakeholder engaged process to develop an Equity Agenda and Action Plan to guide priority setting to advance health equity. Recommendations were developed and refined based on expert input, evidence review, and stakeholder engagement. Participating stakeholders included experts from academia, health care organizations, industry, and government. STUDY DESIGN: Expert group consensus, informed by stakeholder engagement and targeted evidence review. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Priority themes were derived iteratively through (1) brainstorming and idea reduction, (2) targeted evidence review of candidate themes, (3) determination of preliminary themes; (4) input on preliminary themes from stakeholders attending AHRQ's 2022 Health Equity Summit; and (5) and refinement of themes based on that input. The final set of research and action recommendations was determined by authors' consensus. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Health care delivery systems have contributed to racial and ethnic disparities in health care. High quality research is needed to inform health care delivery systems approaches to undo systemic barriers and inequities. We identified six priority themes for research; (1) institutional leadership, culture, and workforce; (2) data-driven, culturally tailored care; (3) health equity targeted performance incentives; (4) health equity-informed approaches to health system consolidation and access; (5) whole person care; (6) and whole community investment. We also suggest cross-cutting themes regarding research workforce and research timelines. CONCLUSIONS: As the nation's primary health services research agency, AHRQ can advance equitable delivery of health care by funding research and disseminating evidence to help transform the organization and delivery of health care.

Evaluation of a brief virtual implementation science training program: the Penn Implementation Science Institute.

BACKGROUND: To meet the growing demand for implementation science expertise, building capacity is a priority. Various training opportunities have emerged to meet this need. To ensure rigor and achievement of specific implementation science competencies, it is critical to systematically evaluate training programs. METHODS: The Penn Implementation Science Institute (PennISI) offers 4 days (20 h) of virtual synchronous training on foundational and advanced topics in implementation science. Through a pre-post design, this study evaluated the sixth PennISI, delivered in 2022. Surveys measures included 43 implementation science training evaluation competencies grouped into four thematic domains (e.g., items related to implementation science study design grouped into the "design, background, and rationale" competency category), course-specific evaluation criteria, and open-ended questions to evaluate change in knowledge and suggestions for improving future institutes. Mean composite scores were created for each of the competency themes. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were completed. RESULTS: One hundred four (95.41% response rate) and 55 (50.46% response rate) participants completed the pre-survey and post-survey, respectively. Participants included a diverse cohort of individuals primarily affiliated with US-based academic institutions and self-reported as having novice or beginner-level knowledge of implementation science at baseline (81.73%). In the pre-survey, all mean composite scores for implementation science competencies were below one (i.e., beginner-level). Participants reported high value from the PennISI across standard course evaluation criteria (e.g., mean score of 3.77/4.00 for overall quality of course). Scores for all competency domains increased to a score between beginner-level and intermediate-level following training. In both the pre-survey and post-survey, competencies related to "definition, background, and rationale" had the highest mean composite score, whereas competencies related to "design and analysis" received the lowest score. Qualitative themes offered impressions of the PennISI, didactic content, PennISI structure, and suggestions for improvement. Prior experience with or knowledge of implementation science influenced many themes. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation highlights the strengths of an established implementation science institute, which can serve as a model for brief, virtual training programs. Findings provide insight for improving future program efforts to meet the needs of the heterogenous implementation science community (e.g., different disciplines and levels of implementation science knowledge). This study contributes to ensuring rigorous implementation science capacity building through the evaluation of programs.

Trauma Patient Transitions From Critical Care: A Survey of U.S. Trauma Centers.

BACKGROUND: Transitions between clinical units are vulnerable periods for patients. A significant body of evidence describes the importance of structured transitions, but there is limited reporting of what happens. Describing transitions within a conceptual model will characterize the salient forces that interact during a patient transition and, perhaps, lead to improved outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe the processes and resources that trauma centers use to transition patients from critical care to nonintensive care units. METHODS: This cross-sectional study surveyed all Level I and II trauma centers listed in the American Trauma Society database from September 2020 to November 2020. Data were merged from the American Hospital Association 2018 Hospital Survey. RESULTS: A total of 567 surveys were distributed, of which 152 responded for a (27%) response rate. Results were organized in categories: capital input, organizational facets, employee behavior, employee terms/scope, and labor inputs. Resources and processes varied; the most important opportunities for transition improvement included: (1) handoff instruments were only reported at 36% (n = 27) of trauma centers, (2) mandatory resident education about transitions was only reported at 70% (n = 16) of trauma centers, and (3) only 6% (n = 4) of trauma centers reported electronic medical record applications that enact features to influence employee behavior. CONCLUSIONS: After years of focusing on transitions as a high-stake period, there remain many opportunities to develop resources and enact effective processes to address the variability in transition practice across trauma centers.

The Anesthesiology Physician-Scientist Pipeline: Current Status and Recommendations for Future Growth-An Initiative of the Anesthesia Research Council.

The limited number and diversity of resident physicians pursuing careers as physician-scientists in medicine has been a concern for many decades. The Anesthesia Research Council aimed to address the status of the anesthesiology physician-scientist pipeline, benchmarked against other medical specialties, and to develop strategic recommendations to sustain and expand the number and diversity of anesthesiology physician-scientists. The working group analyzed data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the National Resident Matching Program to characterize the diversity and number of research-oriented residents from US and international allopathic medical schools entering 11 medical specialties from 2009 to 2019. Two surveys were developed to assess the research culture of anesthesiology departments. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding information awarded to anesthesiology physician-scientists and departments was collected from NIH RePORTER and the Blue Ridge Medical Institute. Anesthesiology ranked eighth to tenth place of 11 medical specialties in the percent of "research-oriented" entering residents, defined as those with advanced degrees (Master's or PhDs) in addition to the MD degree or having published at least 3 research publications before residency. Anesthesiology ranked eighth of 11 specialties in the percent of entering residents who were women but ranked fourth of 11 specialties in the percent of entering residents who self-identified as belonging to an underrepresented group in medicine. There has been a 72% increase in both the total NIH funding awarded to anesthesiology departments and the number of NIH K-series mentored training grants (eg, K08 and K23) awarded to anesthesiology physician-scientists between 2015 and 2020. Recommendations for expanding the size and diversity of the anesthesiology physician-scientist pipeline included (1) developing strategies to increase the number of research intensive anesthesiology departments; (2) unifying the diverse programs among academic anesthesiology foundations and societies that seek to grow research in the specialty; (3) adjusting American Society of Anesthesiologists metrics of success to include the number of anesthesiology physician-scientists with extramural research support; (4) increasing the number of mentored awards from Foundation of Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) and International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS); (5) supporting an organized and concerted effort to inform research-oriented medical students of the diverse research opportunities within anesthesiology should include the specialty being represented at the annual meetings of Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) students and the American Physician Scientist Association, as well as in institutional MSTP programs. The medical specialty of anesthesiology is defined by new discoveries and contributions to perioperative medicine which will only be sustained by a robust pipeline of anesthesiology physician-scientists.

Patient Experiences of Acute and Postacute Care After Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic injury can transform a healthy, independent individual into a patient with complex health needs. Little is known about how injured patients understand their health and healthcare needs during postacute recovery, limiting our ability to optimize care. This multiple-methods study explored injured patients' experiences of care up to 30 days after discharge. METHODS: Injured adults admitted to an urban, Level I trauma center August 1, 2019-November 30, 2020 were sampled purposively to balance blunt and penetrating injuries. Patient experience and health status were assessed at baseline and 30 days postdischarge using the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure. Fifteen qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive subset and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Of 67 participants (76% male, 73% Black, 51% penetrating, median age 34 years), 37 completed follow-up surveys. Quality of acute care was rated 9-10/10 by 81% of the sample for acute and 65% for postacute care (P = 0.09). Thirty percent described fair or poor mental health, but only mental health concerns were addressed for only 2/3. Pain control was inadequate in 31% at baseline and for 46% at follow-up (P = 0.09). Qualitative analysis revealed general satisfaction with acute care but challenges in recovery with unmet needs for communication and care coordination. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients appreciated the quality of their acute care experiences but identified opportunities for improvement in prognostic communication, pain management, and mental health support. Unmet mental and physical care needs persist at least 1 month after hospital discharge and reinforce the need for interventions that optimize postacute trauma care.

So Many Ways to Be Wrong: Completeness and Accuracy in a Prospective Study of OR-to-ICU Handoff Standardization.

BACKGROUND: Studies focused on improving handoffs often measure the quality of information exchange using information completeness without reporting on accuracy. The present investigation aimed to characterize changes in the accuracy of transmitted patient information after standardization of operating room (OR)-to-ICU handoffs. METHODS: Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) was a mixed methods study conducted in two US ICUs. From 2014 to 2016, trained observers captured the nature and content of information transmitted during OR-to-ICU handoffs, comparing this to the electronic medical record. Inconsistencies were compared before and after handoff standardization. Semistructured interviews initially conducted for implementation were reanalyzed to contextualize quantitative findings. RESULTS: A total of 160 OR-to-ICU handoffs were observed-63 before and 97 after standardization. Across seven categories of information, including allergies, past surgical history, and IV fluids, two types of inaccuracy were observed: incomplete information (for example, providing only a partial list of allergies) and incorrect information. Before standardization, an average of 3.5 information elements per handoff were incomplete, and 0.11 were incorrect. After standardization, the number of incomplete information elements per handoff decreased to 2.4 (-1.1, p < 0.001), and the number of incorrect items was similar, at 0.16 (p = 0.54). Interviews revealed that the familiarity of a transporting OR provider (for example, surgeon, anesthetist) with the patient's case was considered an important factor affecting information exchange. CONCLUSION: Handoff accuracy improved after standardizing OR-to-ICU handoffs in a two-ICU study. The improvement in accuracy was due to improved completeness rather than a change in the transmission of inaccurate information.

The Reviewer Academy of the Society of Critical Care Medicine: Key Principles and Strategic Plan.

The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Reviewer Academy seeks to train and establish a community of trusted, reliable, and skilled peer reviewers with diverse backgrounds and interests to promote high-quality reviews for each of the SCCM journals. Goals of the Academy include building accessible resources to highlight qualities of excellent manuscript reviews; educating and mentoring a diverse group of healthcare professionals; and establishing and upholding standards for insightful and informative reviews. This manuscript will map the mission of the Reviewer Academy with a succinct summary of the importance of peer review, process of reviewing a manuscript, and the expected ethical standards of reviewers. We will equip readers to target concise, thoughtful feedback as peer reviewers, advance their understanding of the editorial process and inspire readers to integrate medical journalism into diverse professional careers.

Racial Disparities in Length of Stay Among Severely Ill Patients Presenting With Sepsis and Acute Respiratory Failure.

Importance: Although racial and ethnic minority patients with sepsis and acute respiratory failure (ARF) experience worse outcomes, how patient presentation characteristics, processes of care, and hospital resource delivery are associated with outcomes is not well understood. Objective: To measure disparities in hospital length of stay (LOS) among patients at high risk of adverse outcomes who present with sepsis and/or ARF and do not immediately require life support and to quantify associations with patient- and hospital-level factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This matched retrospective cohort study used electronic health record data from 27 acute care teaching and community hospitals across the Philadelphia metropolitan and northern California areas between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018. Matching analyses were performed between June 1 and July 31, 2022. The study included 102 362 adult patients who met clinical criteria for sepsis (n = 84 685) or ARF (n = 42 008) with a high risk of death at the time of presentation to the emergency department but without an immediate requirement for invasive life support. Exposures: Racial or ethnic minority self-identification. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital LOS, defined as the time from hospital admission to the time of discharge or inpatient death. Matches were stratified by racial and ethnic minority patient identity, comparing Asian and Pacific Islander patients, Black patients, Hispanic patients, and multiracial patients with White patients in stratified analyses. Results: Among 102 362 patients, the median (IQR) age was 76 (65-85) years; 51.5% were male. A total of 10.2% of patients self-identified as Asian American or Pacific Islander, 13.7% as Black, 9.7% as Hispanic, 60.7% as White, and 5.7% as multiracial. After matching racial and ethnic minority patients to White patients on clinical presentation characteristics, hospital capacity strain, initial intensive care unit admission, and the occurrence of inpatient death, Black patients experienced longer LOS relative to White patients in fully adjusted matches (sepsis: 1.26 [95% CI, 0.68-1.84] days; ARF: 0.97 [95% CI, 0.05-1.89] days). Length of stay was shorter among Asian American and Pacific Islander patients with ARF (-0.61 [95% CI, -0.88 to -0.34] days) and Hispanic patients with sepsis (-0.22 [95% CI, -0.39 to -0.05] days) or ARF (-0.47 [-0.73 to -0.20] days). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, Black patients with severe illness who presented with sepsis and/or ARF experienced longer LOS than White patients. Hispanic patients with sepsis and Asian American and Pacific Islander and Hispanic patients with ARF both experienced shorter LOS. Because matched differences were independent of commonly implicated clinical presentation-related factors associated with disparities, identification of additional mechanisms that underlie these disparities is warranted.