Farmer, J Christopher

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.

Objectives: To assess—by literature review and expert consensus—workforce, workload, and burnout considerations among intensivists and advanced practice providers. Design: Data were synthesized from monthly expert consensus and literature review. Setting: Workforce and Workload section workgroup of the Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine Task Force. Measurements and Main Results: Multidisciplinary care teams led by intensivists are an essential component of critical care delivery. Advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) are progressively being integrated into ICU practice models. The ever-increasing number of patients with complex, life-threatening diseases, concentration of ICU beds in few centralized hospitals, expansion of specialty ICU services, and desire for 24/7 availability have contributed to growing intensivist staffing concerns. Such staffing challenges may negatively impact practitioner wellness, team perception of care quality, time available for teaching, and length of stay when the patient to intensivist ratio is greater than or equal to 15. Enhanced team communication and reduction of practice variation are important factors for improved patient outcomes. A diverse workforce adds value and enrichment to the overall work environment. Formal succession planning for ICU leaders is crucial to the success of critical care organizations. Implementation of a continuous 24/7 ICU coverage care model in high-acuity, high-volume centers should be based on patient-centered outcomes. High levels of burnout syndrome are common among intensivists. Prospective analyses of interventions to decrease burnout within the ICU setting are limited. However, organizational interventions are felt to be more effective than those directed at individuals. Conclusions: Critical care workforce and staffing models are myriad and based on several factors including local culture and resources, ICU organization, and strategies to reduce burden on the ICU provider workforce. Prospective studies to assess and avoid the burnout syndrome among intensivists and advanced practice providers are needed.