Characteristics of intensive care units in Michigan: Not an open and closed case

OBJECTIVE: Delivery of critical care by intensivists has been recommended by several groups. Our objective was to understand the delivery of critical care physician services in Michigan and the role of intensivists and nonintensivist providers in providing care. DESIGN: Descriptive questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Intensive care unit (ICU) directors and nurse managers at 96 sites, representing 115 ICUs from 72 hospitals in Michigan. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The primary outcome measure was the percentage of sites utilizing a closed vs. an open model of ICU care. Secondary outcome measures included the percentage of ICUs utilizing a high-intensity service model, hospital size, ICU size, type of clinician providing care, and clinical activities performed. Twenty-four (25%) sites used a closed model of intensive care, while 72 (75%) had an open model of care. Hospitals with closed ICUs were larger and had larger ICUs than sites with open ICUs ( P < 0.05). Hospitalists serving as attending physicians were strongly associated with an open ICU (odds ratio [OR] = 12.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5-60.2), as was the absence of intensivists in the group (OR = 12.2; 95%CI = 1.4-105.8), while ICU and hospital size were not associated. At 18 sites (20%) all attendings were board certified in Critical Care. Sixty sites had less than 50% board-certified attending physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The closed intensivist-led model of intensive care delivery is not in widespread use in Michigan. In the absence of intensivists, alternate models of care, including the hospitalist model, are frequently used. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2010;5:4–9. © 2010 Society of Hospital Medicine.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64903/1/567_ftp.pd

Structures, processes and outcomes of specialist critical care nurse education: An integrative review

Objectives: The objective of this study was to review and synthesise international literature to reveal the contemporary structures, processes, and outcomes of critical care nurse (CCN) education. Method: An integrative review on specialist critical care education was guided by Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review steps: problem identification; literature search; and data evaluation, analysis, and presentation. Donabedian's Quality Framework (Structure-Process-Outcome) provided a useful analytical lens and structure for the reporting of findings. Results: (1) Structures for CCN education incorporated transition-to-practice and ongoing education programs typically offered by hospitals and health services and university-level graduate certificate, diploma, and masters programs. Structural expectations included a standard core curriculum, clinically credible academic staff, and courses compliant with a higher education framework. Published workforce standards and policies were important structures for the practice learning environment. (2) Processes included incremental exposure to increasing patient acuity; consistent and appropriately supported and competent hospital-based preceptors/assessors; courses delivered with a flexible, modular approach; curricula that support nontechnical skills and patient- and family-centred care; stakeholder engagement between the education provider and the clinical setting to guide course planning, evaluation and revalidation; and evidence-based measurement of clinical capabilities/competence. (3) Outcomes included articulation of the scope and levels of graduate attributes and professional activities associated with each level. The role of higher degree research programs for knowledge creation and critical care academic leadership was noted. Conclusions: Provision of high-quality critical care education is multifaceted and complex. These findings provide information for healthcare organisations and education providers. This may enable best practice structures and processes for critical care specialist training that meets the needs of industry and safely supports developing CCN expertise. There is an acknowledged tension between the expectations of governing bodies for policies, standards, and position statements to enhance quality and reduce care variance and the availability of high-quality evidence to underpin these across international contexts

A video depicting resuscitation did not impact upon patients&#39; decision-making

Caitlin Richardson-Royer,1 Imran Naqvi,1 Christopher Riffel,1 Lawrence Harvey,1 Domonique Smith,1 Dagmawe Ayalew,1 Nasim Motayar,1 Yaw Amoateng-Adjepong,1,2 Constantine A Manthous3 1The Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 2Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; 3Lawrence &amp; Memorial Hospital, New London, CT, USA Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that video of and scripted information about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can be deployed during clinician&ndash;patient end-of-life discussions. Few studies, however, examine whether video adds to verbal information-sharing. We hypothesized that video augments script-only decision-making. Methods: Patients aged &gt;65 years admitted to hospital wards were randomized to receive evidence-based information (&ldquo;script&rdquo;) vs. script plus video of simulated CPR and intubation. Patients&rsquo; decisions registered in the hospital record, by hospital discharge were compared for the two groups. Results: Fifty script-only intervention patients averaging 77.7 years were compared to 50 script+video patients with a mean age of 74.7 years. Eleven of 50 (22%) in each group declined CPR; and an additional three (script) vs. four (script+video) refused intubation for respiratory failure. There were no differences in sex, self-reported health trajectory, functional limitations, length of stay, or mortality associated with decisions. Conclusion: The rate at which verbally informed hospitalized elders opted out of resuscitation was not impacted by adding a video depiction of CPR. Keywords: end of life, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPR, intubation, mechanical ventilation, autonom

Dyspnea Review for the Palliative Care Professional: Treatment Goals and Therapeutic Options

Although dyspnea is frequently encountered in the palliative care setting, its optimal management remains uncertain. Clinical approaches begin with accurate assessment, as delineated in part one of this two-part series. Comprehensive dyspnea assessment, which encompasses the physical, emotional, social, and spiritual aspects of this complex symptom, guide the clinician in choosing therapeutic approaches herein presented as part two. Global management of dyspnea is appropriate both as complementary to disease-targeted treatments that target the underlying etiology, and as the sole focus when the symptom has become intractable, disease is maximally treated, and goals of care shift to comfort and quality of life. In this setting, current evidence supports the use of oral or parenteral opioids as the mainstay of dyspnea management, and of inhaled furosemide and anxiolytics as adjuncts. Nonpharmacologic interventions such as acupuncture and pulmonary rehabilitation have potential effectiveness, although further research is needed, and use of a simple fan warrants consideration given its potential benefit and minimal burden and cost