Brown, Samuel M.

Objectives: To understand how patients and family members experience dehumanizing or humanizing treatment when in the ICU. Design: Qualitative study included web-based focus groups and open-ended surveys posted to ICU patient/family social media boards. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Social media responses were collected and organized by stakeholder group. Data underwent qualitative analysis. Setting: Remote focus groups and online surveys. Patients: ICU patient survivors, family members, and ICU teams. Interventions: Not available. Measurements and Main Results: Semi-structured questions and open-ended survey responses. We enrolled 40 patients/family members and 31 ICU team members. Focus groups and surveys revealed three primary themes orienting humanizing/dehumanizing ICU experiences: 1) communication, 2) outcomes, and 3) causes of dehumanization. Dehumanization occurred during “communication” exchanges when ICU team members talked “over” patients, made distressing remarks when patients were present, or failed to inform patients about ICU-related care. “Outcomes” of dehumanization were associated with patient loss of trust in the medical team, loss of motivation to participate in ICU recovery, feeling of distress, guilt, depression, and anxiety. Humanizing behaviors were associated with improved recovery, well-being, and trust. “Perceived causes” of dehumanizing behaviors were linked to patient, ICU team, and healthcare system factors. CONCLUSIONS: Behaviors of ICU clinicians may cause patients and families to feel dehumanized when in the ICU. Negative behaviors are noticed by patients and families, possibly contributing to poor outcomes including mental health, recovery, and lack of trust in ICU teams. Supporting ICU clinicians may enable a more empathic environment and in turn more humanizing clinician-patient encounters.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and initial results of an examination and certification process assessing competence in critical care echocardiography. DESIGN: A test writing committee of content experts from eight professional societies invested in critical care echocardiography was convened, with the Executive Director representing the National Board of Echocardiography. Using an examination content outline, the writing committee was assigned topics relevant to their areas of expertise. The examination items underwent extensive review, editing, and discussion in several face-to-face meetings supervised by National Board of Medical Examiners editors and psychometricians. A separate certification committee was tasked with establishing criteria required to achieve National Board of Echocardiography certification in critical care echocardiography through detailed review of required supporting material submitted by candidates seeking to fulfill these criteria. SETTING: The writing committee met twice a year in person at the National Board of Medical Examiner office in Philadelphia, PA. SUBJECTS: Physicians enrolled in the examination of Special Competence in Critical Care Electrocardiography (CCEeXAM). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 524 physicians sat for the examination, and 426 (81.3%) achieved a passing score. Of the examinees, 41% were anesthesiology trained, 33.2% had pulmonary/critical care background, and the majority had graduated training within the 10 years (91.6%). Most candidates work full-time at an academic hospital (46.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The CCEeXAM is designed to assess a knowledge base that is shared with echocardiologists in addition to that which is unique to critical care. The National Board of Echocardiography certification establishes that the physician has achieved the ability to independently perform and interpret critical care echocardiography at a standard recognized by critical care professional societies encompassing a wide spectrum of backgrounds. The interest shown and the success achieved on the CCEeXAM by practitioners of critical care echocardiography support the standards set by the National Board of Echocardiography for testamur status and certification in this imaging specialty area.

Abstract Rationale Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The evidence supporting NIV use in patients with ARDS remains relatively sparse. Objectives To determine whether, during NIV, the categorization of ARDS severity based on the PaO2/FiO2 Berlin criteria is useful. Methods The LUNG SAFE (Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure) study described the management of patients with ARDS. This substudy examines the current practice of NIV use in ARDS, the utility of the PaO2/FiO2 ratio in classifying patients receiving NIV, and the impact of NIV on outcome. Measurements and Main Results Of 2,813 patients with ARDS, 436 (15.5%) were managed with NIV on Days 1 and 2 following fulfillment of diagnostic criteria. Classification of ARDS severity based on PaO2/FiO2 ratio was associated with an increase in intensity of ventilatory support, NIV failure, and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. NIV failure occurred in 22.2% of mild, 42.3% of moderate, and 47.1% of patients with severe ARDS. Hospital mortality in patients with NIV success and failure was 16.1% and 45.4%, respectively. NIV use was independently associated with increased ICU (hazard ratio, 1.446 [95% confidence interval, 1.159–1.805]), but not hospital, mortality. In a propensity matched analysis, ICU mortality was higher in NIV than invasively ventilated patients with a PaO2/FiO2 lower than 150 mm Hg. Conclusions NIV was used in 15% of patients with ARDS, irrespective of severity category. NIV seems to be associated with higher ICU mortality in patients with a PaO2/FiO2 lower than 150 mm Hg. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02010073).