搜索结果：Critical care medicine

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the evolving role, patterns of use, and costs of critical care medicine in the United States from 2000 to 2005. DESIGN: Retrospective study of data from the Hospital Cost Report Information System (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, Maryland). SETTING: Nonfederal, acute care hospitals with critical care medicine beds in the United States. SUBJECTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed hospital and critical care medicine beds, bed types, days, occupancy rates, payer mix (Medicare and Medicaid), and costs. Critical care medicine costs were compared with national cost indexes. Between 2000 and 2005, the total number of U.S. hospitals with critical care medicine beds decreased by 12.2% (from 3,586 to 3,150). Although the number of hospital beds decreased by 4.2% (from 655,785 to 628,409), both hospital days and occupancy rates increased by 5.1% (from 145.1 to 152.5 million) and 13.7% (from 59% to 67%), respectively. Critical care medicine beds increased by 6.5% (from 88,252 to 93,955), days by 10.6% (from 21.0 to 23.2 million), and occupancy rates by 4.5% (from 65% to 68%). The majority (90%) of critical care medicine beds were classified as intensive care, premature/neonatal, and coronary care unit beds. The percentage of critical care medicine days used by Medicare decreased by 3.8% (from 37.9% to 36.5%) compared with an increase of 15.5% (from 14.5% to 16.8%) by Medicaid. From 2000 to 2005, critical care medicine costs per day increased by 30.4% (from $2698 to $3518). Although annual critical care medicine costs increased by 44.2% (from $56.6 to $81.7 billion), the proportion of hospital costs and national health expenditures allocated to critical care medicine decreased by 1.6% and 1.8%, respectively. However, the proportion of the gross domestic product used by critical care medicine increased by 13.7%. In 2005, critical care medicine costs represented 13.4% of hospital costs, 4.1% of national health expenditures, and 0.66% of the gross domestic product. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care medicine continues to grow in a shrinking U.S. hospital system. The critical care medicine payer mix is evolving, with Medicaid increasing in its percentage of critical care medicine use. Critical care medicine is more cost controlled than other healthcare indexes, but is still using an increasing percentage of the gross domestic product. Our updated and comprehensive critical care medicine use and cost analysis provides a contemporary benchmark for the strategic planning of critical care medicine services within the U.S. healthcare system.

OBJECTIVE: Critical care medicine trainees and faculty must acquire and maintain the skills necessary to provide state-of-the art clinical care to critically ill patients, to improve patient outcomes, optimize intensive care unit utilization, and continue to advance the theory and practice of critical care medicine. This should be accomplished in an environment dedicated to compassionate and ethical care. PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary panel of professionals with expertise in critical care education and the practice of critical care medicine under the direction of the American College of Critical Care Medicine. SCOPE: Physician education in critical care medicine in the United States should encompass all disciplines that provide care in the intensive care unit and all levels of training: from medical students through all levels of postgraduate training and continuing medical education for all providers of clinical critical care. The scope of this guideline includes physician education in the United States from residency through ongoing practice after subspecialization. DATA SOURCES AND SYNTHESIS: Relevant literature was accessed via a systematic Medline search as well as by requesting references from all panel members. Subsequently, the bibliographies of obtained literature were reviewed for additional references. In addition, a search of organization-based published material was conducted via the Internet. This included but was not limited to material published by the American College of Critical Care Medicine, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, and other primary and specialty organizations. Collaboratively and iteratively, the task force met, by conference call and in person, to construct the tenets and ultimately the substance of this guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines for the continuum of education in critical care medicine from residency through specialty training and ongoing throughout practice will facilitate standardization of physician education in critical care medicine.

OBJECTIVES: Critical care medicine is a natural environment for machine learning approaches to improve outcomes for critically ill patients as admissions to ICUs generate vast amounts of data. However, technical, legal, ethical, and privacy concerns have so far limited the critical care medicine community from making these data readily available. The Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine have identified ICU patient data sharing as one of the priorities under their Joint Data Science Collaboration. To encourage ICUs worldwide to share their patient data responsibly, we now describe the development and release of Amsterdam University Medical Centers Database (AmsterdamUMCdb), the first freely available critical care database in full compliance with privacy laws from both the United States and Europe, as an example of the feasibility of sharing complex critical care data. SETTING: University hospital ICU. SUBJECTS: Data from ICU patients admitted between 2003 and 2016. INTERVENTIONS: We used a risk-based deidentification strategy to maintain data utility while preserving privacy. In addition, we implemented contractual and governance processes, and a communication strategy. Patient organizations, supporting hospitals, and experts on ethics and privacy audited these processes and the database. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: AmsterdamUMCdb contains approximately 1 billion clinical data points from 23,106 admissions of 20,109 patients. The privacy audit concluded that reidentification is not reasonably likely, and AmsterdamUMCdb can therefore be considered as anonymous information, both in the context of the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the European General Data Protection Regulation. The ethics audit concluded that responsible data sharing imposes minimal burden, whereas the potential benefit is tremendous. CONCLUSIONS: Technical, legal, ethical, and privacy challenges related to responsible data sharing can be addressed using a multidisciplinary approach. A risk-based deidentification strategy, that complies with both U.S. and European privacy regulations, should be the preferred approach to releasing ICU patient data. This supports the shared Society of Critical Care Medicine and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine vision to improve critical care outcomes through scientific inquiry of vast and combined ICU datasets.

Intensivists are increasingly needed to care for the critically ill and manage ICUs as ICU beds, utilization, acuity of illness, complexity of care and costs continue to rise. However, there is a nationwide shortage of intensivists that has occurred despite years of well publicized warnings of an impending workforce crisis from specialty societies and the federal government. The magnitude of the intensivist shortfall, however, is difficult to determine because there are many perspectives of optimal ICU administration, patient coverage and intensivist availability and a lack of national data on intensivist practices. Nevertheless, the intensivist shortfall is quite real as evidenced by the alternative solutions that hospitals are deploying to provide care for their critically ill patients. In the midst of these manpower struggles, the critical care environment is dynamically changing and becoming more stressful. Severe hospital bed availability and fiscal constraints are forcing ICUs to alter their approaches to triage, throughput and unit staffing. National and local organizations are mandating that hospitals comply with resource intensive and arguably unproven initiatives to monitor and improve patient safety and quality, and informatics systems. Lastly, there is an ongoing sense of professional dissatisfaction among intensivists and a lack of public awareness that critical care medicine is even a distinct specialty. This article offers proposals to increase the adult intensivist workforce through expansion and enhancements of internal medicine based critical care training programs, incentives for recent graduates to enter the critical care medicine field, suggestions for improvements in the critical care profession and workplace to encourage senior intensivists to remain in the field, proactive marketing of critical care, and expanded engagement by the critical care societies in the challenges facing intensivists.

OBJECTIVES: The American College of Critical Care Medicine provided 2002 and 2007 guidelines for hemodynamic support of newborn and pediatric septic shock. Provide the 2014 update of the 2007 American College of Critical Care Medicine "Clinical Guidelines for Hemodynamic Support of Neonates and Children with Septic Shock." DESIGN: Society of Critical Care Medicine members were identified from general solicitation at Society of Critical Care Medicine Educational and Scientific Symposia (2006-2014). The PubMed/Medline/Embase literature (2006-14) was searched by the Society of Critical Care Medicine librarian using the keywords: sepsis, septicemia, septic shock, endotoxemia, persistent pulmonary hypertension, nitric oxide, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines in the newborn and pediatric age groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 2002 and 2007 guidelines were widely disseminated, translated into Spanish and Portuguese, and incorporated into Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Heart Association/Pediatric Advanced Life Support sanctioned recommendations. The review of new literature highlights two tertiary pediatric centers that implemented quality improvement initiatives to improve early septic shock recognition and first-hour compliance to these guidelines. Improved compliance reduced hospital mortality from 4% to 2%. Analysis of Global Sepsis Initiative data in resource rich developed and developing nations further showed improved hospital mortality with compliance to first-hour and stabilization guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The major new recommendation in the 2014 update is consideration of institution-specific use of 1) a "recognition bundle" containing a trigger tool for rapid identification of patients with septic shock, 2) a "resuscitation and stabilization bundle" to help adherence to best practice principles, and 3) a "performance bundle" to identify and overcome perceived barriers to the pursuit of best practice principles.

OBJECTIVES: The Society of Critical Care Medicine and four other major critical care organizations have endorsed a seven-step process to resolve disagreements about potentially inappropriate treatments. The multiorganization statement (entitled: An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units) provides examples of potentially inappropriate treatments; however, no clear definition is provided. This statement was developed to provide a clear definition of inappropriate interventions in the ICU environment. DESIGN: A subcommittee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee performed a systematic review of empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals as well as professional organization position statements to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committees and the Society of Critical Care Medicine Council were included in the statement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICU interventions should generally be considered inappropriate when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient will improve sufficiently to survive outside the acute care setting, or when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient's neurologic function will improve sufficiently to allow the patient to perceive the benefits of treatment. This definition should not be considered exhaustive; there will be cases in which life-prolonging interventions may reasonably be considered inappropriate even when the patient would survive outside the acute care setting with sufficient cognitive ability to perceive the benefits of treatment. When patients or surrogate decision makers demand interventions that the clinician believes are potentially inappropriate, the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement should be followed. Clinicians should recognize the limits of prognostication when evaluating potential neurologic outcome and terminal cases. At times, it may be appropriate to provide time-limited ICU interventions to patients if doing so furthers the patient's reasonable goals of care. If the patient is experiencing pain or suffering, treatment to relieve pain and suffering is always appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The Society of Critical Care Medicine supports the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement. This statement provides added guidance to clinicians in the ICU environment.

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine calls for the use of clinical guidelines and practice parameters to promote "best practices" and to improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: 2007 update of the 2002 American College of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Guidelines for Hemodynamic Support of Neonates and Children with Septic Shock. PARTICIPANTS: Society of Critical Care Medicine members with special interest in neonatal and pediatric septic shock were identified from general solicitation at the Society of Critical Care Medicine Educational and Scientific Symposia (2001-2006). METHODS: The Pubmed/MEDLINE literature database (1966-2006) was searched using the keywords and phrases: sepsis, septicemia, septic shock, endotoxemia, persistent pulmonary hypertension, nitric oxide, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines. Best practice centers that reported best outcomes were identified and their practices examined as models of care. Using a modified Delphi method, 30 experts graded new literature. Over 30 additional experts then reviewed the updated recommendations. The document was subsequently modified until there was greater than 90% expert consensus. RESULTS: The 2002 guidelines were widely disseminated, translated into Spanish and Portuguese, and incorporated into Society of Critical Care Medicine and AHA sanctioned recommendations. Centers that implemented the 2002 guidelines reported best practice outcomes (hospital mortality 1%-3% in previously healthy, and 7%-10% in chronically ill children). Early use of 2002 guidelines was associated with improved outcome in the community hospital emergency department (number needed to treat = 3.3) and tertiary pediatric intensive care setting (number needed to treat = 3.6); every hour that went by without guideline adherence was associated with a 1.4-fold increased mortality risk. The updated 2007 guidelines continue to recognize an increased likelihood that children with septic shock, compared with adults, require 1) proportionally larger quantities of fluid, 2) inotrope and vasodilator therapies, 3) hydrocortisone for absolute adrenal insufficiency, and 4) ECMO for refractory shock. The major new recommendation in the 2007 update is earlier use of inotrope support through peripheral access until central access is attained. CONCLUSION: The 2007 update continues to emphasize early use of age-specific therapies to attain time-sensitive goals, specifically recommending 1) first hour fluid resuscitation and inotrope therapy directed to goals of threshold heart rates, normal blood pressure, and capillary refill <or=2 secs, and 2) subsequent intensive care unit hemodynamic support directed to goals of central venous oxygen saturation >70% and cardiac index 3.3-6.0 L/min/m.

OBJECTIVE: To introduce to the pediatric critical care medicine community a new program in pediatric critical care medicine at the National Institutes of Health. DATA SOURCE: Summary of literature review and conference proceedings. DATA SYNTHESIS: At the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), a new program in pediatric critical care and rehabilitation research has been established in the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. The program is directed by a pediatric intensivist and is focused on developing research directed toward improving long-term outcomes in pediatric critical care and on incorporating pediatric rehabilitation medicine as a partner in this goal. To provide strategic direction for the new program, the NICHD sponsored a planning conference May 3-4, 2002, at the NICHD in Bethesda, MD. The conference invitees represented a broad range of pediatric critical care medicine clinical and research interests, expertise, and career stages. It also included individuals with expertise in rehabilitation research. CONCLUSION: The composition of the new program, including its link to physical medicine and rehabilitation, is discussed. In addition, recommendations by the conference participants and program director are provided to foster the development of more randomized, controlled clinical trials and to develop successful clinician scientists in pediatric critical care medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus statements for the diagnosis and management of corticosteroid insufficiency in critically ill adult patients. PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary, multispecialty task force of experts in critical care medicine was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. In addition, international experts in endocrinology were invited to participate. DESIGN/METHODS: The task force members reviewed published literature and provided expert opinion from which the consensus was derived. The consensus statements were developed using a modified Delphi methodology. The strength of each recommendation was quantified using the Modified GRADE system, which classifies recommendations as strong (grade 1) or weak (grade 2) and the quality of evidence as high (grade A), moderate (grade B), or low (grade C) based on factors that include the study design, the consistency of the results, and the directness of the evidence. RESULTS: The task force coined the term critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency to describe the dysfunction of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis that occurs during critical illness. Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency is caused by adrenal insufficiency together with tissue corticosteroid resistance and is characterized by an exaggerated and protracted proinflammatory response. Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency should be suspected in hypotensive patients who have responded poorly to fluids and vasopressor agents, particularly in the setting of sepsis. At this time, the diagnosis of tissue corticosteroid resistance remains problematic. Adrenal insufficiency in critically ill patients is best made by a delta total serum cortisol of < 9 microg/dL after adrenocorticotrophic hormone (250 microg) administration or a random total cortisol of < 10 microg/dL. The benefit of treatment with glucocorticoids at this time seems to be limited to patients with vasopressor-dependent septic shock and patients with early severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 of < 200 and within 14 days of onset). The adrenocorticotrophic hormone stimulation test should not be used to identify those patients with septic shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome who should receive glucocorticoids. Hydrocortisone in a dose of 200 mg/day in four divided doses or as a continuous infusion in a dose of 240 mg/day (10 mg/hr) for > or = 7 days is recommended for septic shock. Methylprednisolone in a dose of 1 mg x kg(-1) x day(-1) for > or = 14 days is recommended in patients with severe early acute respiratory distress syndrome. Glucocorticoids should be weaned and not stopped abruptly. Reinstitution of treatment should be considered with recurrence of signs of sepsis, hypotension, or worsening oxygenation. Dexamethasone is not recommended to treat critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. The role of glucocorticoids in the management of patients with community-acquired pneumonia, liver failure, pancreatitis, those undergoing cardiac surgery, and other groups of critically ill patients requires further investigation. CONCLUSION: Evidence-linked consensus statements with regard to the diagnosis and management of corticosteroid deficiency in critically ill patients have been developed by a multidisciplinary, multispecialty task force.

Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are aspiring, new technologies with increasing use in critical care medicine. While VR fully immerses the user into a virtual three-dimensional space, AR adds overlaid virtual elements into a real-world environment. VR and AR offer great potential to improve critical care medicine for patients, relatives and health care providers. VR may help to ameliorate anxiety, stress, fear, and pain for the patient. It may assist patients in mobilisation and rehabilitation and can improve communication between all those involved in the patient's care. AR can be an effective tool to support continuous education of intensive care medicine providers, and may complement traditional learning methods to acquire key practical competences such as central venous line placement, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation device management or endotracheal intubation. Currently, technical, human, and ethical challenges remain. The adaptation and integration of VR/AR modalities into useful clinical applications that can be used routinely on the ICU is challenging. Users may experience unwanted side effects (so-called "cybersickness") during VR/AR sessions, which may limit its applicability. Furthermore, critically ill patients are one of the most vulnerable patient groups and warrant special ethical considerations if new technologies are to be introduced into their daily care. To date, most studies involving AR/VR in critical care medicine provide only a low level of evidence due to their research design. Here we summarise background information, current developments, and key considerations that should be taken into account for future scientific investigations in this field.

OBJECTIVES: To review the existing literature and task force opinions on regionalization of critical care services, and to synthesize a judgement on possible costs, benefits, disadvantages, and strategies. DATA SOURCES: Pertinent literature in the English language. STUDY SELECTION: One hundred forty-six English language papers were studied to determine possible ramifications of regionalization of critical care or other similar services. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on possible influence on the care of the critically ill was sought and integrated with the opinions of task force members. Possible costs, benefits, as well as disadvantages to the patient, transferring and receiving institutions, and region as a whole were sought. DATA SYNTHESIS: Regionalization of critical care services was thought to be advantageous to the patient. The larger academic institutions tend to have more resources, better subspecialty availability, and expertise in the care of the critically ill. Efficiency and safety during transport need to be in place. Disadvantages of overutilization, possible costliness to both the referring institution as well as to the receiving institution were outlined. It was agreed that pediatric critical care medicine was a separate issue. CONCLUSIONS: Regionalization of critical care medicine probably is beneficial and the concept should be explored.

RATIONALE: A guideline that both evaluates current practice and provides recommendations to address sedation, pain, and delirium management with regard for neuromuscular blockade and withdrawal is not currently available. OBJECTIVE: To develop comprehensive clinical practice guidelines for critically ill infants and children, with specific attention to seven domains of care including pain, sedation/agitation, iatrogenic withdrawal, neuromuscular blockade, delirium, PICU environment, and early mobility. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Pediatric Pain, Agitation, Neuromuscular Blockade, and Delirium in critically ill pediatric patients with consideration of the PICU Environment and Early Mobility Guideline Taskforce was comprised of 29 national experts who collaborated from 2009 to 2021 via teleconference and/or e-mail at least monthly for planning, literature review, and guideline development, revision, and approval. The full taskforce gathered annually in-person during the Society of Critical Care Medicine Congress for progress reports and further strategizing with the final face-to-face meeting occurring in February 2020. Throughout this process, the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures Manual for Guidelines development was adhered to. METHODS: Taskforce content experts separated into subgroups addressing pain/analgesia, sedation, tolerance/iatrogenic withdrawal, neuromuscular blockade, delirium, PICU environment (family presence and sleep hygiene), and early mobility. Subgroups created descriptive and actionable Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. An experienced medical information specialist developed search strategies to identify relevant literature between January 1990 and January 2020. Subgroups reviewed literature, determined quality of evidence, and formulated recommendations classified as "strong" with "we recommend" or "conditional" with "we suggest." Good practice statements were used when indirect evidence supported benefit with no or minimal risk. Evidence gaps were noted. Initial recommendations were reviewed by each subgroup and revised as deemed necessary prior to being disseminated for voting by the full taskforce. Individuals who had an overt or potential conflict of interest abstained from relevant votes. Expert opinion alone was not used in substitution for a lack of evidence. RESULTS: The Pediatric Pain, Agitation, Neuromuscular Blockade, and Delirium in critically ill pediatric patients with consideration of the PICU Environment and Early Mobility taskforce issued 44 recommendations (14 strong and 30 conditional) and five good practice statements. CONCLUSIONS: The current guidelines represent a comprehensive list of practical clinical recommendations for the assessment, prevention, and management of key aspects for the comprehensive critical care of infants and children. Main areas of focus included 1) need for the routine monitoring of pain, agitation, withdrawal, and delirium using validated tools, 2) enhanced use of protocolized sedation and analgesia, and 3) recognition of the importance of nonpharmacologic interventions for enhancing patient comfort and comprehensive care provision.

OBJECTIVE: To update the practice parameters for the evaluation of adult patients who develop a new fever in the intensive care unit, for the purpose of guiding clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS: A task force of 11 experts in the disciplines related to critical care medicine and infectious diseases was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Specialties represented included critical care medicine, surgery, internal medicine, infectious diseases, neurology, and laboratory medicine/microbiology. EVIDENCE: The task force members provided personal experience and determined the published literature (MEDLINE articles, textbooks, etc.) from which consensus was obtained. Published literature was reviewed and classified into one of four categories, according to study design and scientific value. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The task force met twice in person, several times by teleconference, and held multiple e-mail discussions during a 2-yr period to identify the pertinent literature and arrive at consensus recommendations. Consideration was given to the relationship between the weight of scientific evidence and the strength of the recommendation. Draft documents were composed and debated by the task force until consensus was reached by nominal group process. CONCLUSIONS: The panel concluded that, because fever can have many infectious and noninfectious etiologies, a new fever in a patient in the intensive care unit should trigger a careful clinical assessment rather than automatic orders for laboratory and radiologic tests. A cost-conscious approach to obtaining cultures and imaging studies should be undertaken if indicated after a clinical evaluation. The goal of such an approach is to determine, in a directed manner, whether infection is present so that additional testing can be avoided and therapeutic decisions can be made.

Accurate assessment and rapid decision-making are essential to save lives and improve performance in critical care medicine. Real-time point-of-care ultrasound has become an invaluable adjunct to the clinical evaluation of critically ill and injured patients both for pre- and in-hospital situations. However, a high level of quality is necessary, guaranteed by appropriate education, experience, credentialing, quality control, continuing education, and professional development. Although educational recommendations have been proposed by a variety of nonimaging specialties, to date they are still scattered and limited examples of standards for critical and intensive care professionals. The challenge of providing adequate specialty-specific training, as encouraged by major medical societies, is made even more difficult by the diversity of critical care ultrasound utilization by various subspecialties in a variety of settings and numerous countries. In order to meet this educational challenge, a standard core curriculum is presented in this manuscript. The proposed curriculum is built on a competence, performance, and outcomes-based approach that is tailored to setting-specific training needs and prioritized according to critical problem-based pathways, rather than traditional organ-based systems. A multiple goal-oriented style fully addresses the specialty-specific approach of critical and intensive care professionals, who typically deal with disease states in complex scenarios rather than individual organ complaints. Because of the variation in the concept of what constitutes critical care worldwide, and the rate of change of information and technology, this manuscript attempts to present a learning system addressing a variety of needs for a rapidly changing world.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of, and factors associated with, burnout among pediatric intensivists across a variety of practice settings. DESIGN: A population-based survey, using a mailed questionnaire that included a previously validated Burnout Scale. SETTING: Private and academic pediatric critical care practices. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents from among all members of the Pediatric Section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and all physicians certified in pediatric critical care medicine by the American Board of Pediatrics. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The questionnaire consisted of demographic items, variables noted in the literature as being associated with burnout (e.g., the individual's perception of how others valued their work, and the use of preventive measures such as regular exercise to relieve stress), and a validated Burnout Scale. The questionnaire also included questions pertaining to past training, practice of other primary specialties or subspecialties, practice settings, admission responsibilities, actual and preferred practice activities, total work effort, academic activities, and causes of stress at work. The Burnout Scale of Pines and Aronson is a self-diagnosis instrument, consisting of 21 questions using a 7-point frequency scale. The total Burnout Score represents an average of the scores for the individual components. Scores of < or = 3 in our study were classified as "not burned out." Scores of > 3 and < or = 4 were classified as "at risk." Scores of > 4 were classified as "burned out." A total of 883 questionnaires were mailed; 474 (56%) were respondent returns and 35 questionnaires could not be delivered. Primary analyses focused on the 389 respondent attending physicians presently practicing pediatric critical care medicine at the time of the survey. The average Burnout Score of these attending physicians was 3.1 +/- 0.8; 36% were classified as being at risk for burnout, and 14% were classified as burned out. There was no association between burnout status and the following work conditions: having fellows; having protected time for research and publications; frequency of being called at home; frequency of returning to the hospital when called at home; or call schedule. Respondents classified as burned out were significantly more likely than respondents who were classified as not burned out to feel that their work was not valued by others. Burned out respondents were less likely than respondents who were not burned out to give the following description: feeling very successful; feeling that their peers viewed them as very successful; feeling satisfied in their professional life; and routinely exercising or having some other outside interest. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a high degree of burnout exists in pediatric critical care medicine, with 50% of pediatric intensivists at risk or burned out. Overall, there was no association between Burnout Scores and training, practice specialties, or practice settings, nor was there an association with aspects of practice that are physically taxing. However, perceptions about the value of their work and feelings of success and satisfaction were highly associated with those respondents classified as burned out. Routine exercise (a strategy used by some for stress reduction) was associated with lower Burnout Scores. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the trends that we have reported and to identify causal factors.

OBJECTIVE: To develop clinical practice guidelines for the support of the patient and family in the adult, pediatric, or neonatal patient-centered ICU. PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary task force of experts in critical care practice was convened from the membership of the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to include representation from adult, pediatric, and neonatal intensive care units. EVIDENCE: The task force members reviewed the published literature. The Cochrane library, Cinahl, and MedLine were queried for articles published between 1980 and 2003. Studies were scored according to Cochrane methodology. Where evidence did not exist or was of a low level, consensus was derived from expert opinion. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The topic was divided into subheadings: decision making, family coping, staff stress related to family interactions, cultural support, spiritual/religious support, family visitation, family presence on rounds, family presence at resuscitation, family environment of care, and palliative care. Each section was led by one task force member. Each section draft was reviewed by the group and debated until consensus was achieved. The draft document was reviewed by a committee of the Board of Regents of the ACCM. After steering committee approval, the draft was approved by the SCCM Council and was again subjected to peer review by this journal. CONCLUSIONS: More than 300 related studies were reviewed. However, the level of evidence in most cases is at Cochrane level 4 or 5, indicating the need for further research. Forty-three recommendations are presented that include, but are not limited to, endorsement of a shared decision-making model, early and repeated care conferencing to reduce family stress and improve consistency in communication, honoring culturally appropriate requests for truth-telling and informed refusal, spiritual support, staff education and debriefing to minimize the impact of family interactions on staff health, family presence at both rounds and resuscitation, open flexible visitation, way-finding and family-friendly signage, and family support before, during, and after a death.

This article is a methodological review to help the intensivist gain insights into the classic and sometimes arcane maze of national databases and methodologies used to determine and analyze the ICU bed supply, use, occupancy, and costs in the United States. Data for total ICU beds, use, and occupancy can be derived from two large national healthcare databases: the Healthcare Cost Report Information System maintained by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the proprietary Hospital Statistics of the American Hospital Association. Two costing methodologies can be used to calculate U.S. ICU costs: the Russell equation and national projections. Both methods are based on cost and use data from the national hospital datasets or from defined groups of hospitals or patients. At the national level, an understanding of U.S. ICU bed supply, use, occupancy, and costs helps provide clarity to the width and scope of the critical care medicine enterprise within the U.S. healthcare system. This review will also help the intensivist better understand published studies on administrative topics related to critical care medicine and be better prepared to participate in their own local hospital organizations or regional critical care medicine programs.

RATIONALE: The high costs of health care in the United States and other developed nations are attributable, in part, to overuse of tests, treatments, and procedures that provide little to no benefit for patients. To improve the quality of care while also combating this problem of cost, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation developed the Choosing Wisely Campaign, tasking professional societies to develop lists of the top five medical services that patients and physicians should question. OBJECTIVES: To present the Critical Care Societies Collaborative's Top 5 list in Critical Care Medicine and describe its development. METHODS: Each professional society in the Collaborative nominated members to the Choosing Wisely task force, which established explicit criteria for evaluating candidate items, generated lists of items, performed literature reviews on each, and sought external input from content experts. Task force members narrowed the list to the Top 5 items using a standardized scoring system based on each item's likely overall impact and merits on the five explicit criteria. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From an initial list of 58 unique recommendations, the task force proposed a Top 5 list that was ultimately endorsed by each Society within the Collaborative. The five recommendations are: (1) do not order diagnostic tests at regular intervals (such as every day), but rather in response to specific clinical questions; (2) do not transfuse red blood cells in hemodynamically stable, nonbleeding ICU patients with an Hb concentration greater than 7 g/dl; (3) do not use parenteral nutrition in adequately nourished critically ill patients within the first 7 days of an ICU stay; (4) do not deeply sedate mechanically ventilated patients without a specific indication and without daily attempts to lighten sedation; and (5) do not continue life support for patients at high risk for death or severely impaired functional recovery without offering patients and their families the alternative of care focused entirely on comfort. CONCLUSIONS: These five recommendations provide a starting point for clinicians and patients to make decisions leading to higher-quality, lower-cost care. Future work is needed to promote adherence to these recommendations and to develop additional ways for intensive care clinicians to take leadership in reining in health-care costs.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the philosophy and approach to patient care called evidence based medicine, and to highlight how it can enhance the practice of intensive care. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, reference lists, and our personal files to identify relevant literature. STUDY SELECTION: Articles on intensive care practice, critical appraisal, clinical research, and healthcare delivery were selected for discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: We summarize the rationale for evidence based medicine, its applications and future developments, and suggest several methods for intensivists to use evidence based medicine in their practice and teaching. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence based medicine can complement other foundation disciplines in intensive care. This is the first article in a series entitled "Evidence Based Critical Care Medicine" which will demonstrate how this approach can be used at the bedside.