Citations

Background Intensive care units are high-acuity environments characterized by time pressure, medical complexity, and organizational demands. These conditions may influence clinicians’ ability to provide patient-centered care and contribute to forms of care perceived as fragmented or dehumanizing. Objective To examine how ICU clinicians describe and make sense of the pressures shaping everyday critical care practice, and how these pressures give rise to interacting patterns of care, including those described as hurry, blur, burden, and cruelty. Methods We conducted a qualitative study using focus groups with ICU clinicians from a large academic health system. Discussions were informed by the concept of the pathologies of care as sensitizing concepts. Four focus groups were held with physicians, nurses, advanced practice nurses, and a social worker ( N = 14). Transcripts were analyzed using directed content analysis with both deductive and inductive coding. Results Clinicians described these patterns not as discrete phenomena but as interrelated, context-dependent processes shaped by shared operational pressures such as time constraints, workload, and information demands. These dynamics were often viewed as inherent to the structure and culture of ICU care and were described as co-occurring and compounding. Communication emerged as both a contributor to and a potential mechanism for mitigation, alongside system-level strategies such as reducing documentation burden and leveraging artificial intelligence to support care delivery. Conclusions Patterns reflected in hurry, blur, burden, and cruelty are best understood as emergent properties of complex care systems. Addressing these dynamics may require system-level approaches to improve communication, reduce workload pressures, and support more patient-centered, humanizing care.

Background Adherence to evidence-based care processes and patient outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) can be influenced by staffing and resource availability. We aimed to evaluate if there is a weekend effect on adherence to evidence-based care processes, and hospitalization outcomes and whether a checklist implementation could mitigate potential differences. Methods Post hoc analysis of the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury (CERTAIN) study dataset collected before and after checklist implementation in 34 ICUs across 15 countries (2013-2017). Admission days were classified as ‘weekend/holidays’ or ‘weekdays’ according to local work schedules and public holidays. The primary outcome was the omission of 10 evidence-based care processes addressed in the checklist. Mortality and length of stay differences between weekend/holiday and weekday admissions were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Results 4256 patients contributed 1141 weekend versus 3501 weekday observation days pre-intervention, and 2014 versus 6507 post-intervention. Pre-intervention, peptic ulcer prophylaxis was omitted more frequently on weekends/holidays than weekdays (adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 0.58 [95%–confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.88), whereas head-of-bed elevation was omitted more often on weekdays than on weekends/holidays (aRR, 3.17 [1.14-8.86]). Post-intervention, peptic ulcer prophylaxis omission rates became similar (aRR, 1.03 [0.68-1.56], but head-of-bed elevation became omitted more often on weekends than on weekdays (aRR, 0.63 [0.45-0.88]). Post-intervention, oral care was omitted more frequently on weekends/holidays than in weekdays (aRR, 0.63 [0.45-0.9]), and central catheter removal was more frequent on weekdays than in weekends/holidays (aRR, 1.11 [1.02-1.21]). No significant differences in mortality or length of stay were found. Conclusion A weekend effect influenced adherence to some care processes. While checklist implementation improved overall adherence, some disparities diminished, while new ones emerged. Organizational, cultural, and temporal factors should be further studied to optimize care delivery across all times and settings. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT01973829

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this scoping review was to review some of the challenges hospitals faced in dealing with the shortage of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic and the solutions they were able to implement or suggested. By highlighting these problems and solutions, we hope this review can catalyze further discussions about how to better prepare for future pandemics and medical supply shortages. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search strategy using identifying key words was applied to several different databases to procure relevant literature. STUDY SELECTION: Four thousand two hundred fifty-nine studies were found in the initial search. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were created and applied to screen studies. Included studies focused on the supply and distribution of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the case where reviewers disagreed about whether a study should be included, a third reviewer acted as a tie-breaker. DATA EXTRACTION: Thirty-three studies were included for final data extraction. Two independent reviewers collected various data points from these studies, including the main challenges discussed by the authors, the level of ventilator shortage being addressed, whether ventilator sharing was discussed, and the limitations of the study. DATA SYNTHESIS: A third reviewer compared the collected data and decided on the results. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the common solutions for the ventilator shortage discussed included augmenting overall ventilator supply through increased production, transporting ventilators between hospitals, ventilator sharing, designing new ventilators, and repurposing other resources to help address shortages of supplies.