Gali, Bhargavi

Objective The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced Milestones in 2013 to aid the assessment of residents and fellows within the framework of the six core competencies of practice. Feedback from program directors and trainees, clinical competency committee processes, and milestone reporting identified the need for modification. This study represents a consensus-driven educational quality improvement initiative which describes the development, revision process, and key features of Critical Care Anesthesiology (CCA) Milestones 2.0, and provides lessons learned in adapting competency-based assessment to a one-year subspecialty training program. Methods A Critical Care Anesthesiology (CCA) working group was convened by the ACGME in 2021 to revise the content, enhance relevance to training, clarify goals for program leadership, and develop supplemental resources to aid implementation. The group consisted of a diverse group of experienced educators and clinicians from CCA fellowship programs nationwide. A modified Delphi process, stakeholder feedback, Milestones performance data, and public comment were used to iteratively revise Milestones. In addition, a supplemental guide was developed to provide examples and resources to aid the Milestones assessment. Conclusion The Milestones 2.0 simplify the use, implementation, and interpretation of this competency framework for program directors, trainees, faculty, and the American Board of Anesthesiology. The resulting CCA Milestones 2.0 provide updated specialty-specific, competency-based behavioral anchors to guide the developmental progression of competencies and outcomes for CCA fellows and facilitate the design of curricula and the advancement of CCA training programs. Lessons learned in the development of the CCA Milestones 2.0 include the importance of simplification, behavioral specificity, and supplemental.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and synthesize the evidence surrounding factors impacting women rising to leadership positions in critical care medicine (CCM). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from 2011 to 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Articles included were cohort studies, surveys, and interviews addressing women physicians practicing in CCM and related fields of academic medicine. DATA EXTRACTION: Causes of not rising to leadership among women were extracted and tabulated along with other pertinent study characteristics. DATA SYNTHESIS: The database searches generated 892 records. Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria for data extraction. The included articles represented seven countries, with 30 studies originating in the United States. Only two studies were from CCM, whereas others addressed leadership in other academic and clinical fields of medicine, medical journals, and societies and medical faculty. Twenty-six studies were qualitative, observational studies; five were survey based and eight included interviews. Using thematic analysis, the following five domains emerged: pipeline issues, lack of opportunities, lack of self-efficacy, lack of mentorship, and sustaining women in leadership. CONCLUSIONS: While the satisfaction rates of women in CCM were high, challenges remain for women to obtain leadership opportunities. A culture of support could better nurture and sustain women in leadership roles. More CCM-focused gender bias research is needed. Future targets for interventions include gender bias training, awareness, and developing strategies to break through the cycle of gender preferential promotions in CCM.

In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss use of continuous physiologic monitoring for clinical deterioration, specifically respiratory depression in the postoperative population. The Pro position advocates for 24/7 continuous surveillance monitoring of all patients starting in the postanesthesia care unit until discharge from the hospital. The strongest arguments for universal monitoring relate to inadequate assessment and algorithms for patient risk. We argue that the need for hospitalization in and of itself is a sufficient predictor of an individual’s risk for unexpected respiratory deterioration. In addition, general care units carry the added risk that even the most severe respiratory events will not be recognized in a timely fashion, largely due to higher patient to nurse staffing ratios and limited intermittent vital signs assessments (e.g., every 4 hours). Continuous monitoring configured properly using a “surveillance model” can adequately detect patients' respiratory deterioration while minimizing alarm fatigue and the costs of the surveillance systems. The Con position advocates for a mixed approach of time-limited continuous pulse oximetry monitoring for all patients receiving opioids, with additional remote pulse oximetry monitoring for patients identified as having a high risk of respiratory depression. Alarm fatigue, clinical resource limitations, and cost are the strongest arguments for selective monitoring, which is a more targeted approach. The proponents of the con position acknowledge that postoperative respiratory monitoring is certainly indicated for all patients, but not all patients need the same level of monitoring. The analysis and discussion of each point of view describes who, when, where, and how continuous monitoring should be implemented. Consideration of various system-level factors are addressed, including clinical resource availability, alarm design, system costs, patient and staff acceptance, risk-assessment algorithms, and respiratory event detection. Literature is reviewed, findings are described, and recommendations for design of monitoring systems and implementation of monitoring are described for the pro and con positions.

This article addresses the issue of patient sleep during hospitalization, which the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine believes merits wider consideration by health authorities than it has received to date. Adequate sleep is fundamental to health and well-being, and insufficiencies in its duration, quality, or timing have adverse effects that are acutely evident. These include cardiovascular dysfunction, impaired ventilatory function, cognitive impairment, increased pain perception, psychomotor disturbance (including increased fall risk), psychological disturbance (including anxiety and depression), metabolic dysfunction (including increased insulin resistance and catabolic propensity), and immune dysfunction and proinflammatory effects (increasing infection risk and pain generation). All these changes negatively impact health status and are counterproductive to recovery from illness and operation. Hospitalization challenges sleep in a variety of ways. These challenges include environmental factors such as noise, bright light, and overnight awakenings for observations, interventions, and transfers; physiological factors such as pain, dyspnea, bowel or urinary dysfunction, or discomfort from therapeutic devices; psychological factors such as stress and anxiety; care-related factors including medications or medication withdrawal; and preexisting sleep disorders that may not be recognized or adequately managed. Many of these challenges appear readily addressable. The key to doing so is to give sleep greater priority, with attention directed at ensuring that patients’ sleep needs are recognized and met, both within the hospital and beyond. Requirements include staff education, creation of protocols to enhance the prospect of sleep needs being addressed, and improvement in hospital design to mitigate environmental disturbances. Hospitals and health care providers have a duty to provide, to the greatest extent possible, appropriate preconditions for healing. Accumulating evidence suggests that these preconditions include adequate patient sleep duration and quality. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine calls for systematic changes in the approach of hospital leadership and staff to this issue. Measures required include incorporation of optimization of patient sleep into the objectives of perioperative and general patient care guidelines. These steps should be complemented by further research into the impact of hospitalization on sleep, the effects of poor sleep on health outcomes after hospitalization, and assessment of interventions to improve it.