Search

Background The COVID-19 pandemic placed considerable strain on critical care resources. How US hospitals responded to this crisis is unknown. Research Question What actions did US hospitals take to prepare for a potential surge in demand for critical care services in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic? Study Design and Methods From September to November 2020, the chief nursing officers of a representative sample of US hospitals were surveyed regarding organizational actions taken to increase or maintain critical care capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Weighted proportions of hospitals for each potential action were calculated to create estimates across the entire population of US hospitals, accounting for both the sampling strategy and nonresponse. Also examined was whether the types of actions taken varied according to the cumulative regional incidence of COVID-19 cases. Results Responses were received from 169 of 540 surveyed US hospitals (response rate, 31.3%). Almost all hospitals canceled or postponed elective surgeries (96.7%) and nonsurgical procedures (94.8%). Few hospitals created new medical units in areas not typically dedicated to health care (12.9%), and almost none adopted triage protocols (5.6%) or protocols to connect multiple patients to a single ventilator (4.8%). Actions to increase or preserve ICU staff, including use of ICU telemedicine, were highly variable, without any single dominant strategy. Hospitals experiencing a higher incidence of COVID-19 did not consistently take different actions compared with hospitals facing lower incidence. Interpretation Responses of hospitals to the mass need for critical care services due to the COVID-19 pandemic were highly variable. Most hospitals canceled procedures to preserve ICU capacity and scaled up ICU capacity using existing clinical space and staffing. Future research linking hospital response to patient outcomes can inform planning for additional surges of this pandemic or other events in the future.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of burnout and depressive symptoms is high among physician trainees. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the burden of burnout and depressive symptoms among fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) and what are associated individual fellow, program, and institutional characteristics? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey of fellows enrolled in pulmonary, PCCM, and critical care medicine training programs in the United States to assess burnout and depressive symptoms. Burnout symptoms were measured using the Maslach Burnout Index two-item measure. The two-item Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Procedure was used to screen for depressive symptoms. For each of the two outcomes (burnout and depressive symptoms), we constructed three multivariate logistic regression models to assess individual fellow characteristics, program structure, and institutional polices associated with either burnout or depressive symptoms. RESULTS: Five hundred two of the 976 fellows who received the survey completed it—including both outcome measures—giving a response rate of 51%. Fifty percent of fellows showed positive results for either burnout or depressive symptoms, with 41% showing positive results for depressive symptoms, 32% showing positive results for burnout, and 23% showing positive results for both. Reporting a coverage system in the case of personal illness or emergency (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.73) and access to mental health services (aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.47) were associated with lower odds of burnout. Financial concern was associated with higher odds of depressive symptoms (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05-1.22). Working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week and the burdens of electronic health record (EHR) documentation were associated with a higher odds of both burnout and depressive symptoms. INTERPRETATION: Given the high prevalence of burnout and depressive symptoms among fellows training in PCCM, an urgent need exists to identify solutions that address this public health crisis. Strategies such as providing an easily accessible coverage system, access to mental health resources, reducing EHR burden, addressing work hours, and addressing financial concerns among trainees may help to reduce burnout or depressive symptoms and should be studied further by the graduate medical education community.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected ICUs and critical care health-care providers (HCPs) worldwide.How do regional differences and perceived lack of ICU resources affect critical care resource use and the well-being of HCPs?Between April 23 and May 7, 2020, we electronically administered a 41-question survey to interdisciplinary HCPs caring for patients critically ill with COVID-19. The survey was distributed via critical care societies, research networks, personal contacts, and social media portals. Responses were tabulated according to World Bank region. We performed multivariate log-binomial regression to assess factors associated with three main outcomes: limiting mechanical ventilation (MV), changes in CPR practices, and emotional distress and burnout.We included 2,700 respondents from 77 countries, including physicians (41%), nurses (40%), respiratory therapists (11%), and advanced practice providers (8%). The reported lack of ICU nurses was higher than that of intensivists (32% vs 15%). Limiting MV for patients with COVID-19 was reported by 16% of respondents, was lowest in North America (10%), and was associated with reduced ventilator availability (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 2.10; 95% CI, 1.61-2.74). Overall, 66% of respondents reported changes in CPR practices. Emotional distress or burnout was high across regions (52%, highest in North America) and associated with being female (mechanical ventilation, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33), being a nurse (ARR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.53), reporting a shortage of ICU nurses (ARR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.33), reporting a shortage of powered air-purifying respirators (ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09-1.55), and experiencing poor communication from supervisors (ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.46).Our findings demonstrate variability in ICU resource availability and use worldwide. The high prevalence of provider burnout and its association with reported insufficient resources and poor communication from supervisors suggest a need for targeted interventions to support HCPs on the front lines.

BACKGROUND:Evidence regarding nighttime physician staffing of ICUs is suboptimal. We aimed to determine how nighttime physician staffing models influence patient outcomes. METHODS:We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study in a multicenter registry of US ICUs. The exposure variable was the ICU's nighttime physician staffing model. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included new limitations on life support, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. Daytime physician staffing was studied as a potential effect modifier. RESULTS:The study included 270,742 patients in 143 ICUs. Compared with nighttime staffing with an attending intensivist, nighttime staffing without an attending intensivist was not associated with hospital mortality (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.92-1.15; P = .65). This relationship was not modified by daytime physician staffing (interaction P = .19). When nighttime staffing was subcategorized, neither attending nonintensivist nor physician trainee staffing was associated with hospital mortality compared with attending intensivist staffing. However, nighttime staffing without any physician was associated with reduced odds of hospital mortality (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.91; P = .002) and new limitations on life support (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93; P = .001). Nighttime staffing was not associated with ICU or hospital length of stay. Nighttime staffing with an attending nonintensivist was associated with a slightly longer duration of mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09; P CONCLUSIONS:We found little evidence that nighttime physician staffing models affect patient outcomes. ICUs without physicians at night may exhibit reduced hospital mortality that is possibly attributable to differences in end-of-life care practices.

There is an inherent tension between the training needs of inexperienced clinicians and the safety of the patients for whom they are responsible. Our society has accepted this tension as a necessary trade-off to maintain a competent workforce of physicians year after year. However, recent trends in medical education have diminished resident autonomy in favor of the safety of current patients. One dramatic example is the rapid increase in the number of academic ICUs that provide coverage by attending physicians at all hours. The potential benefits of this staffing model have strong face validity: improved quality and efficiency from the constant involvement of experienced intensivists, increased family and staff satisfaction from the immediate availability of attending physicians, and reduced burn-out among intensivists from reduced on-call responsibilities. Thus, many hospitals have moved toward 24-h coverage by attending intensivist physicians without evidence that these benefits actually accrue and perhaps without full consideration of possible unintended consequences. In this article, we discuss the potential benefits and risks of nocturnal intensivist staffing, considering the needs of current and future patients. Furthermore, we suggest that there remains sufficient uncertainty about these benefits and risks that it is both necessary and ethical to study the effects in earnest.

There is an inherent tension between the training needs of inexperienced clinicians and the safety of the patients for whom they are responsible. Our society has accepted this tension as a necessary trade-off to maintain a competent workforce of physicians year after year. However, recent trends in medical education have diminished resident autonomy in favor of the safety of current patients. One dramatic example is the rapid increase in the number of academic ICUs that provide coverage by attending physicians at all hours. The potential benefits of this staffing model have strong face validity: improved quality and efficiency from the constant involvement of experienced intensivists, increased family and staff satisfaction from the immediate availability of attending physicians, and reduced burn-out among intensivists from reduced on-call responsibilities. Thus, many hospitals have moved toward 24-h coverage by attending intensivist physicians without evidence that these benefits actually accrue and perhaps without full consideration of possible unintended consequences. In this article, we discuss the potential benefits and risks of nocturnal intensivist staffing, considering the needs of current and future patients. Furthermore, we suggest that there remains sufficient uncertainty about these benefits and risks that it is both necessary and ethical to study the effects in earnest.