A Tale of 8 Cities: Pediatric Critical Care Redeployment to Adult Care During Wave 1 of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric hospital resources including critical care faculty (intensivists) redeployed to provide care to adults in adult ICUs or repurposed PICUs during wave 1 of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To determine the magnitude of pediatric hospital resource redeployment and the experience of pediatric intensivists who redeployed to provide critical care to adults with COVID-19. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted at 9 hospitals in 8 United States cities where pediatric resources were redeployed to provide care to critically ill adults with COVID-19. A survey of redeployed pediatric hospital resources and semistructured interviews of 40 redeployed pediatric intensivists were simultaneously conducted. Quantitative data were summarized as median (interquartile range) values. RESULTS: At study hospitals, there was expansion in adult ICU beds from a baseline median of 100 (86-107) to 205 (108-250). The median proportion (%) of redeployed faculty (88; 66-100), nurses (46; 10-100), respiratory therapists (48; 18-100), invasive ventilators (72; 0-100), and PICU beds (71; 0-100) was substantial. Though driven by a desire to help, faculty were challenged by unfamiliar ICU settings and culture, lack of knowledge of COVID-19 and fear of contracting it, limited supplies, exhaustion, and restricted family visitation. They recommended deliberate preparedness with interprofessional collaboration and cross-training, and establishment of a robust supply chain infrastructure for future public health emergencies and will redeploy again if asked. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric resource redeployment was substantial and pediatric intensivists faced formidable challenges yet would readily redeploy again.

Paradoxes of professional autonomy: a qualitative study of U.S. neonatologists from 1978-2017.

The professional autonomy of physicians often requires they take responsibility for life and death decisions, but they must also find ways to avoid bearing the full weight of such decisions. We conducted in-person, semi-structured interviews with neonatologists (n = 20) in four waves between 1978 and 2017 in a single Midwestern U.S. city. Using open coding analysis, we found over time that neonatologists described changes in their sense of professional autonomy and responsibility for decisions with life and death consequences. Through the early 1990s, as neonatology consolidated as a profession, physicians simultaneously enjoyed high levels of professional discretion and responsibility and were often constrained by bioethics and the law. By 2010s, high involvement of parents and collaboration with multiple subspecialties diffused the burden felt by individual practitioners, but neonatology's professional autonomy was correlatively diminished. Decision-making in the NICU over four decades reveal a complex relationship between the professional autonomy of neonatologist and the burden they bear, with some instances of ceding autonomy as a protective measure and other situations of unwelcomed erosion of professional autonomy that neonatologists see as complicating provision of care.

Conscience reconsidered: The moral work of navigating participation in abortion care on labor and delivery.

How do caregivers make decisions about participating in morally contested care, such as abortion? Debates about conscience in the delivery of health care generally assume that participation decisions stem from religious beliefs and moral values. Few studies have examined this question in the context of everyday practice. Drawing on 50 interviews with the staff of a labor and delivery unit offering abortion care-including nurses, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, obstetrics and gynecology residents, and anesthesiologists-we show that respondents have varied definitions of "participation" in abortion care and that participation decisions are driven by an array of factors beyond personal beliefs. We present a conceptual model of "moral work" that shows conscience to be an emerging, iterative process influenced not only by beliefs-religious and non-religious-but also by personal and work experiences and social and institutional contexts. Our study brings new insights into understanding conscience and participation in contested care.

Interhospital Transfer of Children in Septic Shock: A Clinician Interview Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE:: To determine the factors that influence the decision to transfer children in septic shock from level II to level I pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) care. DESIGN:: Interviews with level II PICU physicians in Michigan and Northwest Ohio. A hypothetical scenario of a 14-year-old boy in septic shock was presented. BASELINE:: 40 mL/kg fluid resuscitation, central venous and peripheral arterial access, and high-dose vasopressor infusions were provided. ESCALATION POINT:: After 2 hours. When the patient is in catecholamine-resistant shock and oliguric, invasive mechanical ventilation is initiated. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: All 19 eligible physicians participated. At baseline, respondents would assess measures of perfusion and hemodynamics: blood pressure (BP; 15 [79%]), lactate (12 [63%]), and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2; 10 [53%]). Poor clinical response was signified by low BP (11 [58%]), elevated lactate (9 [47%]), low urine output (8 [42%]), and low ScvO2 (6 [32%]). At the escalation point, 13 of 18 respondents felt there was <50% probability of clinical turnaround without escalating treatment, though only 3 (16%) would call to discuss transfer. Seven (37%) respondents would give more fluid, whereas 8 (42%) would use central venous pressure to guide fluid resuscitation. Ultimately, 15 (79%) respondents would transfer for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or renal replacement therapy if there was no response to escalated care. Four (21%) respondents would not transfer the patient: 1 felt appropriate care could be provided in the level II PICU, 2 felt transfer was unconventional, and 1 was unaware ECMO could be provided in refractory septic shock. CONCLUSIONS:: Level II to level I PICU transfer of children with septic shock is triggered by perceived nonresponse to locally available therapies. Few referring physicians do not transfer children in refractory septic shock. This study provides new insight into decision-making that influences the interhospital transfer of children with septic shock.

Surrogate Decision Makers' Perspectives on Family Members' Prognosis after Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Surrogate communication with providers about prognosis in the setting of acute critical illness can impact both patient treatment decisions and surrogate outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To examine surrogate decision maker perspectives on provider prognostic communication after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted and analyzed qualitatively for key themes. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Surrogate decision makers for individuals admitted with ICH were enrolled from five acute care hospitals. RESULTS: Fifty-two surrogates participated (mean age = 54, 60% women, 58% non-Hispanic white, 13% African American, 21% Hispanic). Patient status at interview was hospitalized (17%), in rehabilitation/nursing facility (37%), deceased (38%), hospice (4%), or home (6%). Nineteen percent of surrogates reported receiving discordant prognoses, leading to distress or frustration in eight cases (15%) and a change in decision for potentially life-saving brain surgery in three cases (6%). Surrogates were surprised or confused by providers' use of varied terminology for the diagnosis (17%) (e.g., "stroke" vs. "brain hemorrhage" or "brain bleed") and some interpreted "stroke" as having a more negative connotation. Surrogates reported that physicians expressed uncertainty in prognosis in 37%; with physician certainty in 56%. Surrogate reactions to uncertainty were mixed, with some surrogates expressing a negative emotional response (e.g., anxiety) and others reporting understanding or acceptance of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Current practice of prognostic communication in acute critical illness has many gaps, leading to distress for surrogates and variability in critical treatment decisions. Further work is needed to limit surrogate distress and improve the quality of treatment decisions.

Interhospital transfer of children in respiratory failure: a clinician interview qualitative study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the decision making underlying transfer of children with respiratory failure from level II to level I pediatric intensive care unit care. METHODS: Interviews with 19 eligible level II pediatric intensive care unit physicians about a hypothetical scenario of a 2-year-old girl in respiratory failure: RESULTS: At baseline, indices critical to management were as follows: OI (53%), partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (Pao2)/Fio2 (32%), and inflation pressure (16%). Poor clinical response was signified by high OI, inflation pressure, and Fio2, and low Pao2/Fio2. At EP 1, 18 of 19 respondents would initiate high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, and 1 would transfer. At EP 2, 15 of 18 respondents would maintain high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, 9 of them calling to discuss transfer. All respondents would transfer if escalated therapies failed to reverse the patient's clinical deterioration. CONCLUSION: Interhospital transfer of children in respiratory failure is triggered by poor response to escalation of locally available care modalities. This finding provides new insight into decision making underlying interhospital transfer of children with respiratory failure.

What must I do to succeed?: narratives from the US premedical experience.

How does a lay person become a doctor? How is a physician made? These questions have been central to work of medical sociologists for well over a half-century. Despite this abiding focus on socialization, nearly all of the literature on this process in the US is informed by studies of the medical school and residency years, with almost no empirical attention paid to the premedical years. Our study addresses this gap in knowledge. To better understand the premedical years we conducted 49 in-depth interviews with premedical students at a selective, public Midwestern university. We found that students understand and explain decisions made during the premedical years with narratives that emphasize the qualities of achievement-orientation, perseverance, and individualism. We also find that these qualities are also emphasized in narratives employed to account for the choice to collaborate with, or compete against, premedical peers. Examination of premedical narratives, and the qualities they emphasize, enriches our understanding of how premedical education shapes a physician's moral development, and underscores the need to include the premedical years in our accounts of "becoming a doctor."

The undergraduate premedical experience in the United States: a critical review.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand the consequences of the premedical years for the character of (future) physicians by critically reviewing the empirical research done on the undergraduate premedical experience in the United States. METHODS: We searched ERIC, JSTOR, PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and PsycINFO from the earliest available date for empirical, peer-reviewed studies of premedical students in the United States. We then used qualitative methods to uncover overall themes present in this literature. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 1,168 articles, 19 of which were included for review. Reviewed articles were published between 1976 and 2010 with the majority published prior to 1990. Articles covered two broad topics: explaining attrition from the premedical track, and investigating the personality traits and stereotypes of premedical students. Self-selection bias and high attrition rates were among the limitations of the reviewed articles. CONCLUSIONS: There is very little current research on the premedical experience. Given the importance of the premedical years on the process of becoming a medical professional, it is imperative that we do more and better research on how the premedical experience shapes future physicians.

Decision making in liver transplant selection committees: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: To receive a liver transplant, patients must first be placed on a waiting list-a decision made at most transplant centers by a multidisciplinary committee. The function of these committees has never been studied. OBJECTIVE: To describe decision making in liver transplant committees and identify opportunities for process improvement. DESIGN: Observational multicenter study. SETTING: 4 liver transplant centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 68 members of liver transplant committees across the 4 centers. MEASUREMENTS: 63 meetings were observed, and 50 committee members were interviewed. Recorded transcripts and field notes were analyzed by using standard qualitative sociologic methods. RESULTS: Although the structure of the meetings varied by center, the process was uniform and primarily involved inductive reasoning to review possible reasons for patient exclusion. Patients were excluded if they were too well, too sick (in the setting of advanced liver disease), or too old or had nonhepatic comorbid conditions, substance abuse problems, or other psychosocial barriers. Dominant themes in the discussions included member angst over deciding who lived or died, a high correlation between psychosocial barriers to transplantation and the patient's socioeconomic status, and the influence of external forces on decision making. Unwritten center policies and confusion regarding advocacy versus stewardship roles were consistently identified as barriers to effective group decision making. LIMITATIONS: The use of qualitative methods provides broad understanding but limits specific inferences. The 4 centers may not reflect the practices of every transplant center nationwide. CONCLUSION: The difficult decisions made by liver transplant committees are reasonably consistent and well-intentioned, but the process might be improved by having more explicit written policies and clarifying roles. This may inform resource allocation in other areas of medicine. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Greenwall Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

The field worker's fields: ethics, ethnography and medical sociology.

Sociologists who do field work in medical settings face an intractable tension between their disciplinary field, which takes a critical perspective toward medicine, and their ethnographic field, which often includes physicians. This paper explores the ethical problems that result from the collision of the two fields. While in the field, ethnographers are forced to choose between sociology and their obligations to host members, as they decide whether to disclose their actual research agendas, whether to ask tough questions or to reveal their concerns, and whether to give advice. The tension persists when field workers leave the field to write, forcing them to choose between competing interpretations and to decide what to reveal or conceal in the interests of confidentiality. Through these moral choices about what to ask, record or present to the reader, ethnographers shape the academic field even as it shapes them.