Siddiqui, Shahla

Objectives: In the United States, training for physicians who manage critically ill adult patients (intensivists) evolved through parallel subspecialty critical care medicine (CCM) pathways with significant commonality. The Society of Critical Care Medicine Adult Critical Care Physician Core Knowledge and Skills Task Force aimed to delineate the common core knowledge and skills required of all intensivists. Design: A master list of content areas and procedural skills was compiled from all CCM subspecialty program requirements and blueprints of the certification examinations. Using a modified Delphi approach, participants were asked to categorize the knowledge items as “advanced knowledge is essential,” “general, but not advanced, knowledge is essential,” or “knowledge is not essential.” Procedures were categorized as “intensivist performs routinely,” “intensivist only performs in an emergency,” or “intensivist knows” about the procedure. Setting: Representatives from CCM stakeholder organizations, including accreditation and certification organizations, critical care societies, and program directors’ societies, were invited to participate. SUBJECTS: Members of the Adult Critical Care Physician Core Knowledge and Skills Task Force of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Interventions: For the first two rounds of the modified Delphi process, Research Electronic Data Capture was used. For the third and fourth rounds, the process was completed through online meetings with Zoom (Zoom Video Corporations, San Jose, CA) utilizing Zoom’s polling feature. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 541 items were determined to be essential, with 145 requiring advanced knowledge and 323 requiring general knowledge. For 73 items, consensus regarding advanced vs. general could not be achieved, but they remained essential. Only eight items were felt to be nonessential. Of the 16 procedures, most were categorized as “intensivist performs.” Conclusions: The large number of items included in the list of essential knowledge and skills demonstrates the complexity of modern CCM. Utilization of a common framework across the subspecialties of CCM could lead to greater harmonization among the fellowship program requirements and certification examinations.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and synthesize the evidence surrounding factors impacting women rising to leadership positions in critical care medicine (CCM). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from 2011 to 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Articles included were cohort studies, surveys, and interviews addressing women physicians practicing in CCM and related fields of academic medicine. DATA EXTRACTION: Causes of not rising to leadership among women were extracted and tabulated along with other pertinent study characteristics. DATA SYNTHESIS: The database searches generated 892 records. Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria for data extraction. The included articles represented seven countries, with 30 studies originating in the United States. Only two studies were from CCM, whereas others addressed leadership in other academic and clinical fields of medicine, medical journals, and societies and medical faculty. Twenty-six studies were qualitative, observational studies; five were survey based and eight included interviews. Using thematic analysis, the following five domains emerged: pipeline issues, lack of opportunities, lack of self-efficacy, lack of mentorship, and sustaining women in leadership. CONCLUSIONS: While the satisfaction rates of women in CCM were high, challenges remain for women to obtain leadership opportunities. A culture of support could better nurture and sustain women in leadership roles. More CCM-focused gender bias research is needed. Future targets for interventions include gender bias training, awareness, and developing strategies to break through the cycle of gender preferential promotions in CCM.

Objectives To describe incidence and risk factors of loss of previous independent living through nonhome discharge or discharge home with health assistance in survivors of intensive care unit (ICU) admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Design Multicenter observational study including patients admitted to the ICU from January 2020 till June 30, 2021. Hypothesis We hypothesized that there is a high risk of nonhome discharge in patients surviving ICU admission due to COVID-19. Setting Data were included from 306 hospitals in 28 countries participating in the SCCM Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID-19 registry. Patients Previously independently living adult ICU survivors of COVID-19. Interventions None. Measurements and Main Results The primary outcome was nonhome discharge. Secondary outcome was the requirement of health assistance among patients who were discharged home. Out of 10 820 patients, 7101 (66%) were discharged alive; 3791 (53%) of these survivors lost their previous independent living status, out of those 2071 (29%) through nonhome discharge, and 1720 (24%) through discharge home requiring health assistance. In adjusted analyses, loss of independence on discharge among survivors was predicted by patient age ≥ 65 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.47-3.14, P < .0001), former and current smoking status (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.46, P = .003 and 1.60 (95% CI 1.18-2.16), P = .003, respectively), substance use disorder (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.12-2.06, P = .007), requirement for mechanical ventilation (aOR 4.17, 95% CI 3.69-4.71, P < .0001), prone positioning (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.38, P = .02), and requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.55-3.34, P < .0001). Conclusions More than half of ICU survivors hospitalized for COVID-19 are unable to return to independent living status, thereby imposing a significant secondary strain on health care systems worldwide.

BACKGROUND: Increased burnout and decreased professional fulfillment among intensive care physicians is partly due to intensive care unit (ICU) workload. Although the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic increased ICU workload, it also may have increased feelings of personal fulfillment due to positive public perceptions of physicians caring for COVID patients. We surveyed critical care anesthesiologists to identify the effect of provider demographics, ICU workload, and COVID-19–related workload, on professional fulfillment and burnout. METHODS: We performed an exploratory survey of 606 members of the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA) in January and February 2022. We used the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI) to grade levels of professional fulfillment and markers of burnout (ie, work exhaustion and disengagement). Univariable and multivariable models were used to identify associations between provider demographics and practice characteristics and professional fulfillment and work exhaustion. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-five intensivists (29%) responded. A total of 65% were male and 49% were between 36 and 45 years old. The overall median PFI score—0 (none) to 24 (most professional fulfillment)—was 17 (IQR, 1–24), with a wide distribution of responses. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with higher professional fulfillment included age >45 years ( P =.004), ≤15 weeks full-time ICU coverage in 2020 ( P =.02), role as medical director ( P =.01), and nighttime home call with supervision of in-house ICU fellows ( P =.01). CONCLUSIONS: Professional fulfillment and work exhaustion in this cross-sectional survey were associated with several demographic and practice characteristics but not COVID-19–related workload, suggesting that COVID-19 workload may not have either positive or negative perceptions on professional fulfillment.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing contributions of critical care anesthesiologists to clinical practice, research, and administrative leadership of intensive care units (ICUs), relatively little is known about the subspecialty-specific clinical practice environment. An understanding of contemporary clinical practice is essential to recognize the opportunities and challenges facing critical care anesthesia, optimize staffing patterns, assess sustainability and satisfaction, and strategically plan for future activity, scope, and training. This study surveyed intensivists who are members of the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA) to evaluate practice patterns of critical care anesthesiologists, including compensation, types of ICUs covered, models of overnight ICU coverage, and relationships between these factors. We hypothesized that variability in compensation and practice patterns would be observed between individuals. METHODS: Board-certified critical care anesthesiologists practicing in the United States were identified using the SOCCA membership distribution list and invited to take a voluntary online survey between May and June 2021. Multiple-choice questions with both single- and multiple-select options were used for answers with categorical data, and adaptive questioning was used to clarify stem-based responses. Respondents were asked to describe practice patterns at their respective institutions and provide information about their demographics, salaries, effort in ICUs, as well as other activities. RESULTS: A total of 490 participants were invited to take this survey, and 157 (response rate 32%) surveys were completed and analyzed. The majority of respondents were White (73%), male (69%), and younger than 50 years of age (82%). The cardiothoracic/cardiovascular ICU was the most common practice setting, with 69.5% of respondents reporting time working in this unit. Significant variability was observed in ICU practice patterns. Respondents reported spending an equal proportion of their time in clinical practice in the operating rooms and ICUs (median, 40%; interquartile range [IQR], 20%–50%), whereas a smaller proportion—primarily those who completed their training before 2009—reported administrative or research activities. Female respondents reported salaries that were $36,739 less than male respondents; however, this difference was not statistically different, and after adjusting for age and practice type, these differences were less pronounced (–$27,479.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], –$57,232.61 to $2273.03; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: These survey data provide a current snapshot of anesthesiology critical care clinical practice patterns in the United States. Our findings may inform decision-making around the initiation and expansion of critical care services and optimal staffing patterns, as well as provide a basis for further work that focuses on intensivist satisfaction and burnout.

In response to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the potential need for physicians to provide critical care services, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has collaborated with the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF) to develop the COVID-Activated Emergency Scaling of Anesthesiology Responsibilities (CAESAR) Intensive Care Unit (ICU) workgroup. CAESAR-ICU is designed and written for the practicing general anesthesiologist and should serve as a primer to enable an anesthesiologist to provide limited bedside critical care services.