Citations

OBJECTIVES: The overall goal of this work is to discuss the various topics associated with critical care advanced practice provider (APP) postgraduate training programs and provide resources for new, developing and existing programs. DESIGN: Three rounds of voting until consensus achieved. SETTING: Electronic surveys, followed by virtual meeting. SUBJECTS: Critical care APPs, physicians, a pharmacist, and a nurse were also included to ensure multidisciplinary representation. All subjects resided and practiced in the United States with a history of education scholarship or post-graduate training leadership. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The workgroup included 14 APPs (ten nurse practitioners and four physician associates), three physicians, one pharmacist, and one registered nurse from 14 institutions across the United States. The workgroup identified six areas of concentration: administration, audience, program structure, curriculum, procedural competence, and accreditation. A survey was generated and employed in three rounds. The first two rounds of voting were completed anonymously, the third round was completed as a live meeting until consensus recommendations, defined as 75% agreement or more, were achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Expert consensus was used to generate consensus recommendations for critical care postgraduate training programs based upon 3 rounds of voting.

Objectives: Data are lacking regarding implementation of novel strategies such as follow-up clinics and peer support groups, to reduce the burden of postintensive care syndrome. We sought to discover enablers that helped hospital-based clinicians establish post-ICU clinics and peer support programs, and identify barriers that challenged them. Design: Qualitative inquiry. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to organize and analyze data. Setting: Two learning collaboratives (ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups), representing 21 sites, across three continents. Subjects: Clinicians from 21 sites. Measurement and Main Results: Ten enablers and nine barriers to implementation of “ICU follow-up clinics” were described. A key enabler to generate support for clinics was providing insight into the human experience of survivorship, to obtain interest from hospital administrators. Significant barriers included patient and family lack of access to clinics and clinic funding. Nine enablers and five barriers to the implementation of “peer support groups” were identified. Key enablers included developing infrastructure to support successful operationalization of this complex intervention, flexibility about when peer support should be offered, belonging to the international learning collaborative. Significant barriers related to limited attendance by patients and families due to challenges in creating awareness, and uncertainty about who might be appropriate to attend and target in advertising. Conclusions: Several enablers and barriers to implementing ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups should be taken into account and leveraged to improve ICU recovery. Among the most important enablers are motivated clinician leaders who persist to find a path forward despite obstacles.