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.

Use of intensive care unit (ICU) resources in the USA far outpaces that of other countries. This increased use is not accompanied by superior clinical outcomes and is at times discordant with patient desires. This Series paper seeks to identify major drivers of ICU resource use in the USA, and to offer steps towards better aligning ICU resource use with clinical needs and patient preferences. After considering several factors, such as organisational, ethical, and economic factors, we suggest that there are four intersecting drivers of irresponsible use of ICU resources in the USA: first, excess ICU bed capacity and a scarcity of data to understand which patients that truly benefit from ICU compared with ward care; second, clinicians misinterpreting the goals and means of patient autonomy; third, an extreme fear of rationing by the general public; and fourth, fee-for-service driven use of advanced medical technologies and procedures that beget ICU expansion.

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.