Citations

OBJECTIVES: Telecritical care (TCC) refers to the delivery of critical care using telehealth technologies. Despite increasing utilization, significant practice variation exists and literature regarding efficacy remains sparse. The Telecritical Care Collaborative Network sought to provide expert, consensus-based best practice recommendations for the design and delivery of TCC. DESIGN: We used a modified Delphi methodology. Following literature review, an oversight panel identified core domains and developed declarative statements for review by an expert voting panel. During three voting rounds, voters agreed or disagreed with statements and provided open-ended feedback, which the oversight panel used to revise statements. Statements met criteria for consensus when accepted by greater than or equal to 85% of voters. SETTING/SUBJECTS: The oversight panel included 18 multidisciplinary members of the TCC Collaborative Network, and the voting panel included 32 invited experts in TCC, emphasizing diversity of discipline, care delivery models, and geography. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified ten core domains: definitions/terminology; care delivery models; staffing and coverage models; technological considerations; ergonomics and workplace safety; licensing, credentialing, and certification; trust and relationship building; quality, safety, and efficiency, research agenda; and advocacy, leading to 79 practice statements. Of 79 original statements, 67 were accepted in round 1. After revision, nine were accepted in round 2 and two in round 3 (two statements were merged). In total, 78 practice statements achieved expert consensus. CONCLUSIONS: These expert consensus recommendations cover a broad range of topics relevant to delivery of TCC. Experts agreed that TCC is most effective when delivered by care teams with specific expertise and by programs with explicit protocols focusing on effective communication, technical reliability, and real-time availability. Interventions should be tailored to local conditions. Although further research is needed to guide future best practice statements, these results provide valuable and actionable recommendations for the delivery of high-quality TCC.

Abstract Introduction Advanced Practice Providers (APPs; Advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants) and physicians-in-training (residents, fellows) receive inadequate education on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)/perioperative OSA risks. However, they are front-line providers assessing these patients. Failure to mitigate this risk has led to significant postoperative morbidity/mortality. We assessed these providers’ perceptions to OSA/perioperative OSA training. Methods Surveys were sent to three provider roles, APPs, residents, and fellows, in four categories of practice at nine academic institutions between May 9-June 30, 2021. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests assessed association between survey responses and participant characteristics. False discovery rate adjustment accounted for multiple comparisons, threshold of q<0.05 for statistical significance. Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel tests evaluated associations stratified by institution. Results 2236 of 6724 (33.3%) participants responded: 48.4% APPs, 11% Fellows and 40.6% Residents. Primary category of practice included: 20.3% Anesthesiology, 8.9% Family Medicine, 34.1%, Internal Medicine (IM)/IM subspecialties, 6.7% Obstetrics/Gynecology/Gynecologic Oncology, 25.9% Surgery/Surgery subspecialties, 4.1% Other.While 93.2% of respondents believed OSA is a risk factor for perioperative complications, fewer respondents reported that they felt adequately trained to assess for OSA (50.9%) in general, with significant differences noted by provider role (range 42-70%, q=0.001) and across the categories of practice (range 12-82%, q=0.001). Even fewer felt adequately trained to assess for OSA in perioperative patients (38.2%) with significant differences noted by provider role (range 31-52%, q=0.001) and across the categories of practice (range 15-84%, q=0.001).Across all categories of practice, respondents indicated that they would like additional educational training about OSA (76.7%). This varied by clinical role (range 64-82%, q=0.003), but not categories of practice (range 73-84%, q=0.13). Furthermore, respondents indicated they also desired additional education about OSA in the perioperative patient (75.5%). This extended across all clinical roles (range 68-77%, q=0.09) and categories of practice (range 72-80%, q=0.09). Conclusion We found significant differences in APP and physician-in-training perceptions of the adequacy of their current training and desire for further OSA/perioperative OSA education. Our study identifies a critical gap and opportunity to improve provider understanding and patient care. Support (If Any) American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation (AASMF) award.