Scruth, Elizabeth

OBJECTIVES: Current research does not address the existence and impact of structured tele-critical care (TCC) training on the delivery of care in the ICU. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the association between on boarding elements focused on training and clinicians perceptions of delivery of care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Critical Care professionals at four U.S. hospitals, professional meetings and Society of Critical Care Medicine’s International Membership base. Participants were active clinicians who practice in the TCC setting. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 432 participants responded to the survey, 227 met the eligibility criteria (52.5%) and were included in the analysis. Respondents were a multi-professional group of TCC clinicians aged between 35–55 years of age (56.4%). Seventy-four percent of respondents reported having orientation before providing TCC, 46% reported having formal mentorship, and 66% reported formal training on their institutional platform. Provision of orientation before participating in a TCC program was associated with higher ratings of feeling prepared (odds ratio [OR], 3.52; p < 0.001) and feeling accepted as part of the ICU team (OR, 2.21; p = 0.008). Mentorship was associated with feeling more prepared (OR, 8.2; p < 0.001) and higher comfort in delivering care (OR, 2.78; p = 0.016). Platform training was associated with feeling more prepared (OR, 4.66; p < 0.001), comfortable in delivering care (OR, 3.6; p = 0.002), feeling accepted as part of the team (OR, 3.18; p < 0.001), and more likely to participate in quality improvement (OR, 2.51; p = 0.001). A site visit also made a positive impact in feeling prepared (OR, 2.86; p < 0.001), comfortable (OR, 4.95; p = 0.002), feeling like recommendations were accepted (OR, 3.73; p < 0.001), more likely to recommend TCC (OR, 3.18; p = 0.001), and participating in quality improvement (OR, 3.24; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, structured training utilizing orientation, mentorship, and platform training as surrogates, along with a site visit before beginning delivery of care in a TCC setting, were associated with more positive perceptions in the delivery of care domains assessed. We highlight potentially important factors that warrant further evaluation and assessment of the need for standardization across TCC programs.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to establish a set of guiding principles for data sharing and harmonization in critical care, focusing on the use of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) to improve patient outcomes and research efficacy. The principles were developed through a systematic literature review and a modified Delphi process, with the goal of enhancing data accessibility, standardization, and interoperability across critical care settings. DATA SOURCES: Data sources included a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed literature, specifically studies related to the use of RWD and RWE in healthcare, guidelines, best practices, and recommendations on data sharing and harmonization. A total of 8150 articles were initially identified through databases such as MEDLINE and Web of Science, with 257 studies meeting inclusion criteria. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria focused on publications discussing health-related informatics, recommendations for RWD/RWE usage, data sharing, and harmonization principles. Exclusion criteria ruled out non-human studies, case studies, conference abstracts, and articles published before 2013, as well as those not available in English. DATA EXTRACTION: From the 257 selected studies, 322 statements were extracted. After removing irrelevant definitions and off-topic content, 232 statements underwent content validation and thematic analysis. These statements were then consolidated into 24 candidate guiding principles after rigorous review and consensus-building among the expert panel. DATA SYNTHESIS: A three-phase modified Delphi process was employed, involving a conceptualization group, a review group, and a Delphi group. In phase 1, experts identified key themes and search terms for the systematic review. Phase 2 involved validating and refining the prospective guiding principles, while phase 3 employed a Delphi panel to rate principles on acceptability, importance, and feasibility. This process resulted in 24 guiding principles, with high consensus achieved in rounds 2 and 3 on their relevance and applicability. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review and Delphi process resulted in 24 guiding principles to improve data sharing and harmonization in critical care. These principles address challenges across the data lifecycle, including generation, storage, access, and usage of RWD and RWE. This framework is designed to promote more effective and equitable data practices, with relevance for the development of artificial intelligence-based decision support tools and clinical research. The principles are intended to guide the responsible use of data science in critical care, with emphasis on ethics and equity, while acknowledging the variability of resources across settings.

OBJECTIVES: Telecritical care (TCC) refers to the delivery of critical care using telehealth technologies. Despite increasing utilization, significant practice variation exists and literature regarding efficacy remains sparse. The Telecritical Care Collaborative Network sought to provide expert, consensus-based best practice recommendations for the design and delivery of TCC. DESIGN: We used a modified Delphi methodology. Following literature review, an oversight panel identified core domains and developed declarative statements for review by an expert voting panel. During three voting rounds, voters agreed or disagreed with statements and provided open-ended feedback, which the oversight panel used to revise statements. Statements met criteria for consensus when accepted by greater than or equal to 85% of voters. SETTING/SUBJECTS: The oversight panel included 18 multidisciplinary members of the TCC Collaborative Network, and the voting panel included 32 invited experts in TCC, emphasizing diversity of discipline, care delivery models, and geography. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified ten core domains: definitions/terminology; care delivery models; staffing and coverage models; technological considerations; ergonomics and workplace safety; licensing, credentialing, and certification; trust and relationship building; quality, safety, and efficiency, research agenda; and advocacy, leading to 79 practice statements. Of 79 original statements, 67 were accepted in round 1. After revision, nine were accepted in round 2 and two in round 3 (two statements were merged). In total, 78 practice statements achieved expert consensus. CONCLUSIONS: These expert consensus recommendations cover a broad range of topics relevant to delivery of TCC. Experts agreed that TCC is most effective when delivered by care teams with specific expertise and by programs with explicit protocols focusing on effective communication, technical reliability, and real-time availability. Interventions should be tailored to local conditions. Although further research is needed to guide future best practice statements, these results provide valuable and actionable recommendations for the delivery of high-quality TCC.

The study’s objective was to assess facilitators and barriers of Tele-Critical Care (TCC) perceived by SCCM members. By utilizing a survey distributed to SCCM members, a cross-sectional study was developed to analyze survey results from December 2019 and July 2020. SCCM members responded to the survey (n = 15,502) with a 1.9% response rate for the first distribution and a 2.54% response rate for the second survey (n = 9985). Participants (n = 286 and n = 254) were almost equally distributed between non-users, providers, users, and potential users of TCC services. The care delivery models for TCC were similar across most participants. Some consumers of TCC services preferred algorithmic coverage and scheduled rounds, while reactive and on-demand models were less utilized. The surveys revealed that outcome-driven measures were the principal form of TCC performance evaluation. A 1:100 (provider: patients) ratio was reported to be optimal. Factors related to costs, perceived lack of need for services, and workflow challenges were described by those who terminated TCC services. Barriers to implementation revolved around lack of reimbursement and adequate training. Interpersonal communication was identified as an essential TCC provider skill. The second survey introduced after the onset pandemic demonstrated more frequent use of advanced practice providers and focus on performance measures. Priorities for effective TCC deployment include communication, knowledge, optimal operationalization, and outcomes measurement at the organizational level. The potential effect of COVID-19 during the early stages of the pandemic on survey responses was limited and focused on the need to demonstrate TCC value.