Jacobi, Judith

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.

Objective: To update the 2002 version of “Clinical practice guidelines for sustained neuromuscular blockade in the adult critically ill patient.” Design: A Task Force comprising 17 members of the Society of Critical Medicine with particular expertise in the use of neuromuscular-blocking agents; a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation expert; and a medical writer met via teleconference and three face-to-face meetings and communicated via e-mail to examine the evidence and develop these practice guidelines. Annually, all members completed conflict of interest statements; no conflicts were identified. This activity was funded by the Society for Critical Care Medicine, and no industry support was provided. Methods: Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation expert on the Task Force created profiles for the evidence related to six of the 21 questions and assigned quality-of-evidence scores to these and the additional 15 questions for which insufficient evidence was available to create a profile. Task Force members reviewed this material and all available evidence and provided recommendations, suggestions, or good practice statements for these 21 questions. Results: The Task Force developed a single strong recommendation: we recommend scheduled eye care that includes lubricating drops or gel and eyelid closure for patients receiving continuous infusions of neuromuscular-blocking agents. The Task Force developed 10 weak recommendations. 1) We suggest that a neuromuscular-blocking agent be administered by continuous intravenous infusion early in the course of acute respiratory distress syndrome for patients with a Pa o 2 /F io 2 less than 150. 2) We suggest against the routine administration of an neuromuscular-blocking agents to mechanically ventilated patients with status asthmaticus. 3) We suggest a trial of a neuromuscular-blocking agents in life-threatening situations associated with profound hypoxemia, respiratory acidosis, or hemodynamic compromise. 4) We suggest that neuromuscular-blocking agents may be used to manage overt shivering in therapeutic hypothermia. 5) We suggest that peripheral nerve stimulation with train-of-four monitoring may be a useful tool for monitoring the depth of neuromuscular blockade but only if it is incorporated into a more inclusive assessment of the patient that includes clinical assessment. 6) We suggest against the use of peripheral nerve stimulation with train of four alone for monitoring the depth of neuromuscular blockade in patients receiving continuous infusion of neuromuscular-blocking agents. 7) We suggest that patients receiving a continuous infusion of neuromuscular-blocking agent receive a structured physiotherapy regimen. 8) We suggest that clinicians target a blood glucose level of less than 180 mg/dL in patients receiving neuromuscular-blocking agents. 9) We suggest that clinicians not use actual body weight and instead use a consistent weight (ideal body weight or adjusted body weight) when calculating neuromuscular-blocking agents doses for obese patients. 10) We suggest that neuromuscular-blocking agents be discontinued at the end of life or when life support is withdrawn. In situations in which evidence was lacking or insufficient and the study results were equivocal or optimal clinical practice varies, the Task Force made no recommendations for nine of the topics. 1) We make no recommendation as to whether neuromuscular blockade is beneficial or harmful when used in patients with acute brain injury and raised intracranial pressure. 2) We make no recommendation on the routine use of neuromuscular-blocking agents for patients undergoing therapeutic hypothermia following cardiac arrest. 3) We make no recommendation on the use of peripheral nerve stimulation to monitor degree of block in patients undergoing therapeutic hypothermia. 4) We make no recommendation on the use of neuromuscular blockade to improve the accuracy of intravascular-volume assessment in mechanically ventilated patients. 5) We make no recommendation concerning the use of electroencephalogram-derived parameters as a measure of sedation during continuous administration of neuromuscular-blocking agents. 6) We make no recommendation regarding nutritional requirements specific to patients receiving infusions of neuromuscular-blocking agents. 7) We make no recommendation concerning the use of one measure of consistent weight over another when calculating neuromuscular-blocking agent doses in obese patients. 8) We make no recommendation on the use of neuromuscular-blocking agents in pregnant patients. 9) We make no recommendation on which muscle group should be monitored in patients with myasthenia gravis receiving neuromuscular-blocking agents. Finally, in situations in which evidence was lacking or insufficient but expert consensus was unanimous, the Task Force developed six good practice statements. 1) If peripheral nerve stimulation is used, optimal clinical practice suggests that it should be done in conjunction with assessment of other clinical findings (e.g., triggering of the ventilator and degree of shivering) to assess the degree of neuromuscular blockade in patients undergoing therapeutic hypothermia. 2) Optimal clinical practice suggests that a protocol should include guidance on neuromuscular-blocking agent administration in patients undergoing therapeutic hypothermia. 3) Optimal clinical practice suggests that analgesic and sedative drugs should be used prior to and during neuromuscular blockade, with the goal of achieving deep sedation. 4) Optimal clinical practice suggests that clinicians at the bedside implement measure to attenuate the risk of unintended extubation in patients receiving neuromuscular-blocking agents. 5) Optimal clinical practice suggests that a reduced dose of an neuromuscular-blocking agent be used for patients with myasthenia gravis and that the dose should be based on peripheral nerve stimulation with train-of-four monitoring. 6) Optimal clinical practice suggests that neuromuscular-blocking agents be discontinued prior to the clinical determination of brain death.

This paper describes the goals of the American Society of Health‐System Pharmacists' Pharmacy Practice Model Initiative (PPMI) and its recommendations for health‐system pharmacy practice transformation to meet future patient care needs and elevate the role of pharmacists as patient care providers. PPMI envisions a future in which pharmacists have greater responsibility for medication‐related outcomes and technicians assume greater responsibility for product‐related activities. Although the PPMI recommendations have elevated the level of practice in many settings, they also potentially affect existing clinical pharmacists, in general, and clinical pharmacy specialists, in particular. Moreover, although more consistent patient care can be achieved with an expanded team of pharmacist providers, the role of clinical pharmacy specialists must not be diminished, especially in the care of complex patients and populations. Specialist practitioners with advanced training and credentials must be available to model and train pharmacists in generalist positions, residents, and students. Indeed, specialist practitioners are often the innovators and practice leaders. Negotiation between hospitals and pharmacy schools is needed to ensure a continuing role for academic clinical pharmacists and their contributions as educators and researchers. Lessons can be applied from disciplines such as nursing and medicine, which have developed new models of care involving effective collaboration between generalists and specialists. Several different pharmacy practice models have been described to meet the PPMI goals, based on available personnel and local goals. Studies measuring the impact of these new practice models are needed.