Spevetz, Antoinette

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: In the United States, physician training in Critical Care Medicine has developed as a subspecialty of different primary boards, despite significant commonality in knowledge and skills. The Society of Critical Care Medicine appointed a multidisciplinary Task Force to examine alternative approaches for future training. Design: The Task Force reviewed the literature and conducted informal discussions with key stakeholders. Specific topics reviewed included the history of critical care training, commonalities among subspecialties, developments since a similar review in 2004, international experience, quality patient care, and financial and workforce issues. Main Results: The Task Force believes that options for future training include establishment of a 1) primary specialty of critical care; 2) unified fellowship and certification process; or 3) unified certification process with separate fellowship programs within the current specialties versus 4) maintaining multiple specialty-based fellowship programs and certification processes. Conclusions: 1) Changing the current Critical Care Medicine training paradigms may benefit trainees and patient care. 2) Multiple pathways into critical care training for all interested trainees are desirable for meeting future intensivist workforce demands. 3) The current subspecialties within separate boards are not “distinct and well-defined field[s] of medical practice” per the American Board of Medical Specialties. Recommendations for first steps are as follows: 1) as the society representing multidisciplinary critical care, the Society of Critical Care Medicine has an opportunity to organize a meeting of all stakeholders to discuss the issues regarding Critical Care Medicine training and consider cooperative approaches for the future. 2) A common Critical Care Medicine examination, possibly with a small percentage of base-specialty–specific questions, should be considered. 3) Institutions with multiple Critical Care Medicine fellowship programs should consider developing joint, multidisciplinary training curricula. 4) The boards that offer Critical Care Medicine examinations, along with national critical care societies, should consider ways to shorten training time.