Coopersmith, Craig M

OBJECTIVE: A definition of refractory septic shock is necessary to guide diagnosis, management, prognostication, research, and future guidelines for this most severe form of the disease. We sought to achieve consensus on clinical criteria that would be used to define refractory septic shock. DESIGN: Review of literature, expert panel position statements, and Delphi rounds with an international expert group. SETTING: Consensus was defined as having at least 75% of panellists in agreement or disagreement on the three highest or lowest levels of a 7-point Likert scale or based on responses to single- or multiple-choice questions, respectively. SUBJECTS: A panel of multinational, multiprofessional and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (57 invitations and 56 participants). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A five-round Delphi process was conducted for consensus and stability. The steering committee proposed 34 statements, and five of them were rejected by panel experts after round 2. Among 29 statements selected from eight domains, consensus was reached for 13. The panel agreed on the need for a comprehensive consensus set of clinical criteria for refractory septic shock. Markers of organ dysfunction (75%, 2 rounds), tissue perfusion (91.1%, 2 rounds) including lactate (94.6%, 2 rounds) and capillary refill time (76.8%, 2 rounds), assessment of fluid-responsiveness after initial resuscitation (92.9%, 5 rounds), and use of vasoactive drugs at norepinephrine equivalents greater than 0.5 µg/kg/min (75.0%, 3 rounds), were selected as clinical criteria of refractory septic shock. The use of critical care ultrasound (CCUS) (92.9%, 3 rounds) was the single diagnostic modality that reached a consensus-based agreement. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus for 13 criteria to frame the definition of refractory septic shock was reached. Refractory septic shock is characterised by persistently elevated lactate concentrations and or prolonged capillary refill time in patients with septic shock who are fluid unresponsive, require a norepinephrine base equivalent dose greater than 0.5 micrograms per kilogram per minute, and undergo CCUS assessment when mixed shock is suspected.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the factors affecting critical care capacity and how critical care organizations (CCOs) within academic centers in the U.S. flow-size critical care resources under normal operations, strain, and surge conditions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, federal agency and American Hospital Association reports, and previous CCO survey results were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies and reports of critical care bed capacity and utilization within CCOs and in the United States were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: The Academic Leaders in the Critical Care Medicine Task Force established regular conference calls to reach a consensus on the approach of CCOs to “flow-sizing” critical care services. DATA SYNTHESIS: The approach of CCOs to “flow-sizing” critical care is outlined. The vertical (relation to institutional resources, e.g., space allocation, equipment, personnel redistribution) and horizontal (interdepartmental, e.g., emergency department, operating room, inpatient floors) integration of critical care delivery (ICUs, rapid response) for healthcare organizations and the methods by which CCOs flow-size critical care during normal operations, strain, and surge conditions are described. The advantages, barriers, and recommendations for the rapid and efficient scaling of critical care operations via a CCO structure are explained. Comprehensive guidance and resources for the development of “flow-sizing” capability by a CCO within a healthcare organization are provided. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and summarized the fundamental principles affecting critical care capacity. The taskforce highlighted the advantages of the CCO governance model to achieve rapid and cost-effective “flow-sizing” of critical care services and provide recommendations and resources to facilitate this capability. The relevance of a comprehensive approach to “flow-sizing” has become particularly relevant in the wake of the latest COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the growing risks of another extreme epidemic, planning for adequate capacity to confront the next critical care crisis is urgent.

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.

Objective: New, value-based regulations and reimbursement structures are creating historic care management challenges, thinning the margins and threatening the viability of hospitals and health systems. The Society of Critical Care Medicine convened a taskforce of Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine on February 22, 2016, during the 45th Critical Care Congress to develop a toolkit drawing on the experience of successful leaders of critical care organizations in North America for advancing critical care organizations (Appendix 1). The goal of this article was to provide a roadmap and call attention to key factors that adult critical care medicine leadership in both academic and nonacademic setting should consider when planning for value-based care. Design: Relevant medical literature was accessed through a literature search. Material published by federal health agencies and other specialty organizations was also reviewed. Collaboratively and iteratively, taskforce members corresponded by electronic mail and held monthly conference calls to finalize this report. Setting: The business and value/performance critical care organization building section comprised of leaders of critical care organizations with expertise in critical care administration, healthcare management, and clinical practice. Measurements and Main Results: Two phases of critical care organizations care integration are described: “horizontal,” within the system and regionalization of care as an initial phase, and “vertical,” with a post-ICU and postacute care continuum as a succeeding phase. The tools required for the clinical and financial transformation are provided, including the essential prerequisites of forming a critical care organization; the manner in which a critical care organization can help manage transformational domains is considered. Lastly, how to achieve organizational health system support for critical care organization implementation is discussed. Conclusions: A critical care organization that incorporates functional clinical horizontal and vertical integration for ICU patients and survivors, aligns strategy and operations with those of the parent health system, and encompasses knowledge on finance and risk will be better positioned to succeed in the value-based world.