Search

Intensive care is slowly being recognized as a separate medical specialization. Physicians, called intensivists, are being specially trained to manage intensive care units (ICUs) and provide focused, high quality care to critically ill patients. However, these ICUs were traditionally managed by primary physicians who used to admit patients in ICUs under their own care. The presence of specially trained intensivists in these ICUs has started a "turf" war. In spite of the availability of overwhelming evidence that intensivists-based ICUs can provide better patient care leading to improved outcome, there is hesitancy among hospital administrators and other policy makers towards adopting such a model. Major critical care societies and workgroups have recommended intensivists-based ICU models to care for critically ill patients, but even in developed countries, on-site intensivist coverage is lacking in a great majority of hospitals. Lack of funds and unavailability of skilled intensivists are commonly cited as the main reasons for not implementing intensivist-led ICU care in most of the ICUs. To provide optimal, comprehensive and skilled care to this severely ill patient population, it is imperative that a multi-disciplinary team approach must be adopted with intensivists as in-charge. Even though ICU organization and staffing may be determined by hospital policies and other local factors, all efforts must be made to attain the goal of having round-the-clock onsite intensivist coverage to ensure continuity of specialized care for all critically ill patients.

The incidence of severe sepsis and septic shock is increasing in the older population leading to increased admissions to the intensive care units (ICUs). The elderly are predisposed to sepsis due to co-existing co-morbidities, repeated and prolonged hospitalizations, reduced immunity, functional limitations and above all due to the effects of aging itself. A lower threshold and a higher index of suspicion is required to diagnose sepsis in this patient population because the initial clinical picture may be ambiguous, and aging increases the risk of a sudden deterioration in sepsis to severe sepsis and septic shock. Management is largely based on standard international guidelines with a few modifications. Age itself is an independent risk factor for death in patients with severe sepsis, however, many patients respond well to timely and appropriate interventions. The treatment should not be limited or deferred in elderly patients with severe sepsis only on the grounds of physician prejudice, but patient and family preferences should also be taken into account as the outcomes are not dismal. Future investigations in the management of sepsis should not only target good functional recovery but also ensure social independence and quality of life after ICU discharge.