Is There a Doctor in the House?

Perceptions of 24/7 In-house Attending Coverage on Fellow Education and Autonomy in a Pediatric Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

The 24/7 in-house attending coverage is emerging as the standard of care in intensive care units. Implementation costs, workforce feasibility, and patient outcomes resulting from changes in physician staffing are widely debated topics. Understanding the impact of staffing models on the learning environment for medical trainees and faculty is equally warranted, particularly with respect to trainee education and autonomy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to elicit the perceptions of pediatric cardiology fellows and attendings toward 24/7 in-house attending coverage and its effect on fellow education and autonomy.

METHODS

We surveyed pediatric cardiology fellows and attendings practicing in the pediatric cardiothoracic intensive care unit (PCTU) of a large, university-affiliated medical center, using structured Likert response items and open-ended questions, prior to and following the transition to 24/7 in-house attending coverage.

RESULTS

All (100%) trainees and faculty completed all surveys. Both prior to and following transition to 24/7 in-house attending coverage, all fellows, and the majority of attendings agreed that the overnight call experience benefited fellow education. At baseline, trainees identified limited circumstances in which on-site attending coverage would be critical. Preimplementation concerns that 24/7 in-house attending coverage would negatively affect the education of fellows were not reflected following actual implementation of the new staffing policy. However, based upon open-ended questions, fellow autonomy was affected by the new paradigm, with fellows and attendings reporting decreased "appropriateness" of autonomy after implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our prospective study, showing initial concerns about limiting the learning environment in transitioning to 24/7 in-house attending coverage did not result in diminished perceptions of the educational experience for our fellows but revealed an expected decrease in fellow autonomy. The study indirectly facilitated open discussions about methods to preserve fellow education and warranted autonomy in our PCTU; however, continued efforts are needed to achieve the optimal balance between supervised training and the transition to autonomous practice.

Survey of in-house coverage by pediatric intensivists: characterization of 24/7 in-hospital pediatric critical care faculty coverage*

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the current state of 24/7 in-hospital pediatric intensivist coverage in academic PICUs, including perceptions of faculty and trainees regarding the advantages and disadvantages of in-hospital coverage.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study via web-based survey.

SETTING

PICUs at North American academic institutions.

SUBJECTS

Pediatric intensivists, pediatric critical care fellows, and pediatric residents.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1,323 responses were received representing a center response rate of 74% (147 of 200). Ninety percent of respondents stated that in-hospital coverage is good for patient care, and 85% stated that in-hospital coverage provides safer care. Sixty-three percent of intensivists stated that working in in-hospital models limits academic productivity, and 65% stated that in-hospital models interfere with nonclinical responsibilities. When compared with intensivists in home coverage models, intensivists working in in-hospital models generally had more favorable perceptions of the effects of in-hospital on patient care (p < 0.0001) and faculty quality of life. Physician burnout was measured with the abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory. Although 57% of intensivists responded that working in in-hospital models increases burnout risk, burnout scores were not different between coverage models. Seventy-nine percent of intensivists currently working at institutions with in-hospital coverage stated that they would prefer to work in an in-hospital coverage model, compared with 31% of those working in a home coverage model (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although concerns exist regarding the effect of 24/7 in-hospital coverage on faculty, the majority of pediatric intensivists and critical care trainees responded that in-hospital coverage by intensivists is good for patient care. The majority of intensivists also state that they would prefer to work at an institution with in-hospital coverage. Further research is needed to objectively delineate the effects of in-hospital coverage on both patients and faculty.

Intensivists at night: putting resources in the right place

During the past 50 years, caring for the critically ill has become increasingly complex and the need for an intensivist has become more evident. Management by intensivists has become a quality indicator for many ICUs. Numerous small studies have demonstrated the beneficial effect of intensivists on outcomes in the critically ill, and some clinicians have advanced the argument that a night-time intensivist is essential for the care of critically ill patients. In response, many institutions have hired full-time intensivists for both day and night coverage in the ICU. Two recent studies have been conducted that make a compelling argument for redirecting funding of night-time intensivists to areas of greater need in health care. In a retrospective analysis of a large database that involved more than 65,000 patients, no benefit of night-time intensivists could be found in ICUs where care is managed by intensivists during the day. Only in ICUs where management by intensivists is not mandated could a beneficial impact on mortality be found. The second study, a randomized controlled trial, evaluated the effect of night-time intensivists on length of stay, mortality, and other outcomes and was a negative trial. In this methodologically rigorous trial, there was no difference in outcomes between the intensivist and control group, which consisted of in-house resident coverage at night with availability by telephone of fellows and intensivists. These two robust studies clearly suggest that night-time intensivists do not improve mortality in ICUs managed by intensivists during the day. Though possibly beneficial in low-intensity environments, the widespread drive to add night-time intensivist coverage may have been premature.

A randomized trial of nighttime physician staffing in an intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of intensive care units (ICUs) are adopting the practice of nighttime intensivist staffing despite the lack of experimental evidence of its effectiveness.

METHODS

We conducted a 1-year randomized trial in an academic medical ICU of the effects of nighttime staffing with in-hospital intensivists (intervention) as compared with nighttime coverage by daytime intensivists who were available for consultation by telephone (control). We randomly assigned blocks of 7 consecutive nights to the intervention or the control strategy. The primary outcome was patients' length of stay in the ICU. Secondary outcomes were patients' length of stay in the hospital, ICU and in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, and rates of readmission to the ICU. For length-of-stay outcomes, we performed time-to-event analyses, with data censored at the time of a patient's death or transfer to another ICU.

RESULTS

A total of 1598 patients were included in the analyses. The median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III score (in which scores range from 0 to 299, with higher scores indicating more severe illness) was 67 (interquartile range, 47 to 91), the median length of stay in the ICU was 52.7 hours (interquartile range, 29.0 to 113.4), and mortality in the ICU was 18%. Patients who were admitted on intervention days were exposed to nighttime intensivists on more nights than were patients admitted on control days (median, 100% of nights [interquartile range, 67 to 100] vs. median, 0% [interquartile range, 0 to 33]; P<0.001). Nonetheless, intensivist staffing on the night of admission did not have a significant effect on the length of stay in the ICU (rate ratio for the time to ICU discharge, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 1.09; P=0.72), ICU mortality (relative risk, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.28), or any other end point. Analyses restricted to patients who were admitted at night showed similar results, as did sensitivity analyses that used different definitions of exposure and outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In an academic medical ICU in the United States, nighttime in-hospital intensivist staffing did not improve patient outcomes. (Funded by University of Pennsylvania Health System and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01434823.).

Picking up the pieces: towards a better future for critical care medicine in three South American countries

The demand for intensivists is increasing around the world, not only to meet the needs of a growing aging population, but also to fill positions in the intensive care unit now occupied by other specialists, since there is compelling evidence that the presence of critical care practitioners improves patient outcomes. Notwithstanding this, the shortage of intensivists is a problem recognized throughout the world. In this article, we discuss these issues in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, three upper-middle income Latin American countries where critical care has been a medical specialty for decades and intensive care unit coverage traditionally has followed the 24/7 model. The lack of intensivists is multifactorial: the specialty is not taught to medical students; there is a general perception of a negative lifestyle compared with the practice of other medical specialties, due mainly to the constant 24-hour shift work; and there is general dissatisfaction with incomes, which has forced many intensivists into multijob schemes. The expected-and feared-consequences are the 40 to 70% vacant posts in residencies of critical care. Despite these drawbacks, scientific societies and colleges are intensely committed, pointing out these problems to the press, calling the health authorities for action, and permanently generating educational activities. Surprisingly, 83% of surveyed intensivists would choose critical care medicine again, evidencing the strong vocational component in its practice, which seems to predominate over negative aspects.

Is the CAT questionnaire sensitive to changes in health status in patients with severe COPD exacerbations?

The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) was validated in English showing good psychometric properties. The objective of this study is to assess the capacity of the CAT to detect changes in health status in patients experiencing COPD exacerbations (ECOPD) and to further explore the validity of the Spanish version. An observational study was conducted in 49 Spanish centres. Patients hospitalised because of ECOPD (n = 224) completed the CAT, the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire-adapted for COPD (SGRQ-C) and the London Chest Activities of Daily Living (LCADL) questionnaire during the first 48 hours of admission and 4 ± 1 weeks after discharge. Stable patients (n = 153) also completed these at recruitment and 4 ± 1 weeks later. Over 90% of patients were male. The CAT discriminated between stable and ECOPD patients (15.8 vs 22.4, p < 0.01), as well as between patients with different levels of airflow limitation and dyspnea (MRC scale). The CAT proved sensitive to change; change in mean score was 8.9 points (effect size (ES), 0.90) in ECOPD patients reporting their health state as "much better" after discharge, 4.8 points in those reporting "quite a lot better" (ES = 0.63), and 4.6 points in those reporting "slightly better" (ES = 0.59). Cronbach's alpha and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient were 0.86 and 0.83, respectively. It correlated with both the SGRQ (r = 0.82; p < 0.01) and the LCADL (r = 0.63; p < 0.01). Change in CAT correlated well with Δ SGRQ (r = 0.63; p < 0.01). The CAT showed to be sensitive to the change in health status associated with ECOPD. We also provide evidence of the validity of the Spanish version.

Resident full-time specialists in the ICU: a survivable model?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intensivists have a professional and personal interest in trying to answer whether immediate review of patients by a consultant intensivist improves outcomes. Although some advocate in-hospital around-the-clock consultant intensivist presence, does the available evidence suggest all ICUs should be staffed in such a manner and is such a service sustainable given the shortage of intensivists, potential loss of staff from burnout and cost?

RECENT FINDINGS

We present in narrative form the background and recent literature for a consultant resident service in terms of the ethical tenets of nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice. Nonmaleficence - what is the evidence it is bad for patients not to provide a resident service? Beneficence - what is the evidence a resident intensivist service is good for patients? Autonomy - is it in intensivists' own interests to provide a 24-h service? And justice - is it a justifiable use of healthcare resources?

SUMMARY

A unified staffing solution within a country's different ICUs, let alone between countries, is unlikely. The current evidence does not universally support or justify 24  h/7 days consultant intensivist presence. International differences in staffing models and ICU structures make direct comparisons difficult and in some circumstances the balance may favour 24  h/7 days consultant intensivists.

Nighttime intensivist staffing and mortality among critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Hospitals are increasingly adopting 24-hour intensivist physician staffing as a strategy to improve intensive care unit (ICU) outcomes. However, the degree to which nighttime intensivists are associated with improvements in the quality of ICU care is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving ICUs that participated in the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) clinical information system from 2009 through 2010, linking a survey of ICU staffing practices with patient-level outcomes data from adult ICU admissions. Multivariate models were used to assess the relationship between nighttime intensivist staffing and in-hospital mortality among ICU patients, with adjustment for daytime intensivist staffing, severity of illness, and case mix. We conducted a confirmatory analysis in a second, population-based cohort of hospitals in Pennsylvania from which less detailed data were available.

RESULTS

The analysis with the use of the APACHE database included 65,752 patients admitted to 49 ICUs in 25 hospitals. In ICUs with low-intensity daytime staffing, nighttime intensivist staffing was associated with a reduction in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio for death, 0.62; P=0.04). Among ICUs with high-intensity daytime staffing, nighttime intensivist staffing conferred no benefit with respect to risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.08; P=0.78). In the verification cohort, there was a similar relationship among daytime staffing, nighttime staffing, and in-hospital mortality. The interaction between nighttime staffing and daytime staffing was not significant (P=0.18), yet the direction of the findings were similar to those in the APACHE cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of nighttime intensivist staffing to a low-intensity daytime staffing model was associated with reduced mortality. However, a reduction in mortality was not seen in ICUs with high-intensity daytime staffing. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).