Hite, R. Duncan

AbstractClinical decision-making is based on knowledge, expertise, and authority, with clinicians approving almost every intervention—the starting point for delivery of “All the right care, but only the right care,” an unachieved healthcare quality improvement goal. Unaided clinicians suffer from human cognitive limitations and biases when decisions are based only on their training, expertise, and experience. Electronic health records (EHRs) could improve healthcare with robust decision-support tools that reduce unwarranted variation of clinician decisions and actions. Current EHRs, focused on results review, documentation, and accounting, are awkward, time-consuming, and contribute to clinician stress and burnout. Decision-support tools could reduce clinician burden and enable replicable clinician decisions and actions that personalize patient care. Most current clinical decision-support tools or aids lack detail and neither reduce burden nor enable replicable actions. Clinicians must provide subjective interpretation and missing logic, thus introducing personal biases and mindless, unwarranted, variation from evidence-based practice. Replicability occurs when different clinicians, with the same patient information and context, come to the same decision and action. We propose a feasible subset of therapeutic decision-support tools based on credible clinical outcome evidence: computer protocols leading to replicable clinician actions (eActions). eActions enable different clinicians to make consistent decisions and actions when faced with the same patient input data. eActions embrace good everyday decision-making informed by evidence, experience, EHR data, and individual patient status. eActions can reduce unwarranted variation, increase quality of clinical care and research, reduce EHR noise, and could enable a learning healthcare system.

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: Acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy in severe vasodilatory shock is associated with an unfavorable prognosis. Angiotensin II treatment may help these patients by potentially restoring renal function without decreasing intrarenal oxygenation. We analyzed the impact of angiotensin II on the outcomes of acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy. Design: Post hoc analysis of the Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock 3 trial. Setting: ICUs. Patients: Patients with acute kidney injury treated with renal replacement therapy at initiation of angiotensin II or placebo ( n = 45 and n = 60, respectively). Interventions: IV angiotensin II or placebo. Measurements and Main Results: Primary end point: survival through day 28; secondary outcomes included renal recovery through day 7 and increase in mean arterial pressure from baseline of ≥ 10 mm Hg or increase to ≥ 75 mm Hg at hour 3. Survival rates through day 28 were 53% (95% CI, 38%–67%) and 30% (95% CI, 19%–41%) in patients treated with angiotensin II and placebo ( p = 0.012), respectively. By day 7, 38% (95% CI, 25%–54%) of angiotensin II patients discontinued RRT versus 15% (95% CI, 8%–27%) placebo ( p = 0.007). Mean arterial pressure response was achieved in 53% (95% CI, 38%–68%) and 22% (95% CI, 12%–34%) of patients treated with angiotensin II and placebo ( p = 0.001), respectively. Conclusions: In patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy at study drug initiation, 28-day survival and mean arterial pressure response were higher, and rate of renal replacement therapy liberation was greater in the angiotensin II group versus the placebo group. These findings suggest that patients with vasodilatory shock and acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy may preferentially benefit from angiotensin II.