Intensivist Model Research Articles

Overnight In-House Critical Care Resource Intensivist Improves General Surgery Resident Education.

24/7 critical care staffing has become more commonplace, and their impact on resident training must be carefully considered. At our institution, the Critical Care Resource Intensivist (CCRI) model was implemented to provide in-house dedicated faculty responsible solely for the provision of critical care overnight. An anonymous survey was distributed to all general surgery residents to evaluate CCRI's impact on education and autonomy. Descriptive statistics were completed for quantitative data. Qualitative analysis of free text responses was completed to identify consensus themes. Responses from 26 residents demonstrated they associated CCRI with improved resident education, supervision, and patient care, without limiting autonomy. Qualitative analysis yielded 7 themes, reflecting improvements in patient care and safety, progression of care, operations and procedures, improved education, availability, and independence, but noted potential for conflict. Our findings show 24/7 dedicated intensivist staffing can enhance general surgery resident education without limiting autonomy.

The Critical Care Resource Intensivist Model: An Essential Component to Critical Care Nursing.

At a large academic level 1 trauma center, an additional resource was added at night, the Critical Care Resource Intensivist (CCRI), which is a multi-disciplinary group of fellowship trained intensivists. Prior to implementation of this additional resource, concurrent to implementation and one-year post implementation, critical care (CC) nurses that provide care in the surgical, neurologic, medical, and cardiac intensive care units (ICU) were anonymously surveyed to evaluate the CCRI model from a nursing perspective. Survey results were aggregated via an electronic cloud-based survey tool. Our goal was to obtain qualitative data to inform hypothesis generation and quality improvement questions. As such, we collected free-text answers to the questions, "Do you ever have concerns about availability of faculty in the ICU?" and, "Do you have any suggestions or comments after implementation of CCRI?" Answers were categorized into pre- and postCCRI strata. When coding the data, the investigators found a total of 9 themes that connected all the free-text survey. The themes included faculty accessibility, nurse safety, satisfaction, continuum of care and patient safety, to name a few. CCRI was uniformly and unanimously felt to improve patient care and decrease provider stress, because of improved availability and responsiveness of cc-faculty. The need to expand the CCRI model across institutional campuses was also stated clearly within their responses. These surveys demonstrate the strong support for the CCRI model by CC nurse providers. Further studies should investigate the effects of CCRI on nurse provider burnout and turnover, especially given recent crises in nursing.

1149: IMPACT OF AN INTENSIVIST TEAM IN AN URBAN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT

Introduction: A seminal 2007 study found that critically-ill patients with a greater than six hour Emergency Department (ED) length of stay had a significant increase in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (10.7% vs. 2.4%). Furthermore, U.S. ED’s have provide a 217% increase in critical care hours provided in U.S. ED’s. These two factors have likely been exacerbated by worsening ED boarding. To address the imminent need for critical care in the ED, we deployed an emergency medicine-intensivist team as a resource during the highest patient volume time at our tertiary care academic ED. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patient management by the resource intensivist team (RIT) from September 2020 to October 2021. We compared patient characteristics managed by the RIT to those managed by the rest of the ED at that time as well as historical norms. The primary outcome was patients per hour seen by the emergency medicine physicians during the RIT deployment hours; secondary outcomes included length of stay (ED, ICU, and hospital), time to first antibiotic, time to first vasopressor, procedures per patient (PPP) and disposition level of care. Results: Over the study period, 88 patients were managed by the RIT and 2480 were managed by the emergency medicine physicians on-shift. While statistically significant, there was only a minimal difference in patients per hour (PPH) between the two groups (1.27 PPH vs 1.38 PPH). There was a significantly faster time to first antibiotic (2.41 hours vs 4.96 hours) with a trend towards faster time for first vasopressors (4.08hrs vs 5.79hrs, p=0.338). Additionally, 24.7% of patient initially triaged to critical care were transitioned to a lower level of care by the RIT without a change in their ED length of stay (10.60hrs vs 10.88hrs p = 0.703). Finally, significantly more procedures were performed on patients managed by the RIT (0.47 PPP vs 0.05 PPP). Conclusions: The addition of a resource intensivist model to our academic tertiary care ED significantly decreased the time to antimicrobial administration and allowed RIT residents to perform more procedures, and transitioned patients to lower levels of care without adversely affecting ED length of stay. Additional work is required to identify areas where a RIT can improve the care of patients in the ED.

Implementation of a Surgical Intensivist Model Increases Palliative Care Consultation in the Care of Trauma ICU Patients.

This study investigated patient outcomes of care before and after transitioning to a surgical intensivist-led trauma-intensive care unit (ICU) team. The intensivist team provided daily multidisciplinary rounds and continuity of care. Prior to an intensivist model, general surgeons cared for trauma patients admitted to the unit. Outcomes of 1,078 trauma patients, admitted to the ICU at a Level II trauma center, under care of general surgeons (1/2011-8/2012, n = 449) were retrospectively compared with care managed by a surgical intensivist team (1/2013-5/2015, n = 629) by Pearson Chi-squared and Wilcoxon tests. A multivariable logistic regression technique was used to control for covariates. Demographics and injury severity were analyzed. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. The secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), ventilator-free and ICU-free days, and ICU readmission rate. Other data collected included palliative care consultation. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in ICU mortality (P = 0.055), hospital LOS (P = 0.481), ventilator-free days (P = 0.174), or ICU readmission rate (P = 0.587). The surgical intensivist team consulted palliative care more frequently (4.0% vs 13.5%, P < 0.001), while managing more trauma patients who were older than 65 years (P < 0.001) with lower Glasgow Coma Scale (P = 0.048) and higher injury severity (P = 0.025) and abbreviated injury scale (P < 0.001) scores. There were no differences in outcomes. However, incorporating palliative care consultation in the ICU is essential in the support of critically ill patients and their families. These data demonstrate that a surgical intensivist team utilized palliative care more often in the management of trauma patients admitted to the ICU.

Critical emergency medicine and the resuscitative care unit.

Critical emergency medicine is the medical field concerned with management of critically ill patients in the emergency department (ED). Increased ED stay due to intensive care unit (ICU) overcrowding has a negative impact on patient care and outcome. It has been proposed that implementation of critical care services in the ED can negate this effect. Two main Critical Emergency Medicine models have been proposed, the “resource intensivist” and “ED-ICU” models. The resource intensivist model is based on constant presence of an intensivist in the traditional ED setting, while the ED-ICU model encompasses the notion of a separate ED-based unit, with monitoring and therapeutic capabilities similar to those of an ICU. Critical emergency medicine has the potential to improve patient care and outcome; however, establishment of evidence-based protocols and a multidisciplinary approach in patient management are of major importance.

Improved Outcomes With Integrated Intensivist Consultation for Cardiac Surgery Patients.

This study examined the impact of integrated intensivist consultation in the immediate postoperative period on outcomes for cardiac surgery patients. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 1711 adult cardiac surgery patients from a single quaternary care center in Minnesota. Outcomes were compared across 2 consecutive 2-year time periods reflecting an elective intensivist model (n = 801) and an integrated intensivist model (n = 910). Patients under the 2 models were comparable with respect to demographics, comorbidities, procedure types, and Society for Thoracic Surgery predicted risk of mortality score; however, patients in the earlier cohort were slightly older and more likely to have chronic kidney disease ( P = .003). Integrated intensivist involvement was associated with reduced postoperative ventilator time, length of stay (LOS), stroke, encephalopathy, and reoperations for bleeding (all P < .01) but was not associated with mortality. Intensivist integration into the postoperative care of cardiac surgery patients may reduce ventilator time, LOS, and complications but may not improve survival.

Postoperative Complications and Outcomes Associated With a Transition to 24/7 Intensivist Management of Cardiac Surgery Patients.

Nighttime intensivist staffing does not improve patient outcomes in general ICUs. Few studies have examined the association between dedicated in-house 24/7 intensivist coverage on outcomes in specialized cardiac surgical ICUs. We sought to evaluate the association between 24/7 in-house intensivist-only management of cardiac surgical patients on postoperative complications and health resource utilization. Before-and-after propensity matched cohort study. Tertiary care cardiac surgical ICU. Patients greater than 18 years old who underwent cardiac surgery between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2013 (nighttime resident model), were propensity-matched (1:1) to patients from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014 (24/7 in-house intensivist model). Cardiac surgical ICU coverage change from a nighttime resident physician coverage model to a 24/7 in-house intensivist staffing model. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of postoperative major complications. Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, all-cause cardiac surgical ICU readmissions, and surgical postponements attributed to lack of cardiac surgical ICU bed availability. A total of 1,509 patients during the nighttime resident model were matched to 1,509 patients during the intensivist model. The adjusted risk of major complications (26.3% vs 19.3%; odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.36-0.85; p < 0.01), mean mechanical ventilation time (25.2 vs 19.4 hr; p < 0.01), cardiac surgical ICU readmissions (5.3% vs 1.6%; odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19-0.48; p < 0.01), and surgical postponements (3.4 vs 0.3 per mo; p < 0.01) were lower with the intensivist model. A transition to a 24/7 in-house intensivist care model was associated with a reduction in postoperative major complications, duration of mechanical ventilation, cardiac surgical ICU readmissions, and surgical postponements. These findings suggest that 24/7 intensivist physician care models may improve patient outcomes and health resource utilization in specialized cardiac surgical ICUs.

Mature Trauma Intensivist Model Improves Intensive Care Unit Efficiency But Not Mortality

Although the Leap Frog intensivist staffing model has been shown to improve outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU), to date, no one has examined the effect of an intensivist model in a dedicated trauma ICU. With stricter adherence to evidence-based protocols and 24-hour availability, we hypothesized that a mature intensivist model in a trauma ICU would decrease mortality. Level II trauma center trauma ICU admissions 2006 to 2011. The ICU care provided by 6 trauma intensivists. Two periods were compared: early (2006-2008) and mature (2009-2011). Patients matched on age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), preexisting conditions, and so on in a univariate analysis, with significant variables placed in a logistic regression model, with mortality as the outcome. A total of 3527 patients (2999 excluding do not resuscitate status) were reviewed. Age ≥65 (odds ratio [OR] 2.38, P < .001), ISS ≥17 (OR 3.3, P < .001), coagulopathy (OR 1.64, P = .004), and anemia (OR 1.73, P = .02) were independent predictors of mortality. Multivariate logistic model encompassing these factors found no statistically significant differences in mortality across the 6-year period. The ICU efficiency showed significant improvements in terms of ventilator days (30.1% EARLY vs 24.4% MATURE; P < .001), decreases in mean consultant use per patient (0.55 ± 0.85 EARLY vs 0.40 ± 0.74 MATURE; P < .001), and increase in number of bedside procedures per patient (0.09 ± 0.48 EARLY vs 0.40 ± 0.74 MATURE; P < .001 CONCLUSIONS: Our mature intensivists staffing model shows improvement in ICU throughput (ventilator days, ICU days, decreased consultant use, and increased bedside procedures) but no survival benefit. Further improvements in overall trauma mortality may lie in the resuscitative and operative phase of patient care.

Providing Care for Critically Ill Surgical Patients

Providing optimal care for critically ill and injured surgical patients will become more challenging with staff shortages for surgeons and intensivists. This white paper addresses the historical issues behind the present situation, the need for all intensivists to engage in dedicated critical care per the intensivist model, and the recognition that intensivists from all specialties can provide optimal care for the critically ill surgical patient, particularly with continuing involvement by the surgeon of record. The new acute care surgery training paradigm (including trauma, surgical critical care, and emergency general surgery) has been developed to increase interest in trauma and surgical critical care, but the number of interested trainees remains too few. Recommendations are made for broadening the multidisciplinary training and practice opportunities in surgical critical care for intensivists from all base specialties and for maintaining the intensivist model within acute care surgery practice. Support from academic and administrative leadership, as well as national organizations, will be needed.

Intensivists Improve Outcomes and Compliance with Process Measures in Critically Ill Patients

Specialty-trained intensivist involvement in the care of critically ill patients has been associated with improved outcomes; however, the factors contributing to this observation are unknown. We hypothesized that intensivist-led ICU care would result in decreased mortality, length of stay, and rate of deep venous thrombosis/pulmonary embolism along with improved compliance with ICU process measures. We performed a retrospective review of 847 patients using the October 2008 transition at a regional medical center from an open ICU to a model in which board-certified intensivists assume primary responsibility or co-management of all critically ill patients. Included in the analysis were patients admitted to the ICU during the 3 months immediately before the transition (June to September 2008) and a 3-month period 1 year later (June to September 2009). End points included mortality, length of stay, and deep venous thrombosis/pulmonary embolism rates, as well as several ICU process measures. Patients in the post-intensivist cohort had a shorter hospital length of stay (7.4 days vs 8.7 days; p = 0.009) and a trend toward decreased mortality (9.3% vs 13.3%; p = 0.086). Patients also received timely initiation of deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis more frequently and tended toward more frequent timely initiation of nutritional support. Patients in the post-intensivist cohort admitted to the ICU with sepsis demonstrated a significant decrease in mortality (11.4% vs 35.0%, p = 0.010), both overall and in patients with APACHE II scores >20. Intensivist-led ICU care is associated with improved outcomes in patients with sepsis and possibly in all ICU patients. Compliance with selected evidence-based practices improved. Additional study is needed to understand the mechanisms by which the intensivist model improves outcomes.

Feasibility and Early Outcomes of Intensivist-Led Critical Care after Major Trauma in the Korean ICU

PurposeSubstantial evidence supports the benefits of an intensivist model of critical care delivery. However, currently, this mode of critical care delivery has not been widely adopted in Korea. We hypothesized that intensivist-led critical care is feasible and would improve ICU mortality after major trauma.Materials and MethodsA trauma registry from May 2009 to April 2011 was reviewed retrospectively. We evaluated the relationship between modes of ICU care (open vs. intensivist) and in-hospital mortality following severe injury [Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15]. An intensivist-model was defined as ICU care delivered by a board-certified physician who had no other clinical responsibilities outside the ICU and who is primarily available to the critically ill or injured patients. ISS and Revised Trauma Score were used as measure of injury severity. The Trauma and Injury Severity Score methodology was used to calculate each individual patient's probability of survival.ResultsOf the 251 patients, 57 patients were treated by an intensivist [intensivist group (IG)] while 194 patients were not [non-intensivist group (NIG)]. The ISS of IG was significantly higher than that for NIG (26.5 vs. 22.3, p=0.023). The hospital mortality rate for IG was significantly lower than that for NIG (15.8% and 27.8%, p<0.001).ConclusionThe intensivist model of critical care is feasible, and there is room for improvement in the care of major trauma patients. Although trauma systems take time to mature, future studies are needed to evaluate the best model of critical care delivery for severely injured patients in Korea.

Glucose Variability Negatively Impacts Long-Term Functional Outcome in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury

Abstract Purpose Significant glycemic excursions (so-called glucose variability) affect the outcome of generic critically ill patients but has not been well studied in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of glucose variability on long-term functional outcome of patients with TBI. Material and Methods A noncomputerized tight glucose control protocol was used in our intensivist model surgical intensive care unit. The relationship between the glucose variability and long-term (a median of 6 months after injury) functional outcome defined by extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) was analyzed using ordinal logistic regression models. Glucose variability was defined by SD and percentage of excursion (POE) from the preset range glucose level. Results A total of 109 patients with TBI under tight glucose control had long-term GOSE evaluated. In univariable analysis, there was a significant association between lower GOSE score and higher mean glucose, higher SD, POE more than 60, POE 80 to 150, and single episode of glucose less than 60 mg/dL but not POE 80 to 110. After adjusting for possible confounding variables in multivariable ordinal logistic regression models, higher SD, POE more than 60, POE 80 to 150, and single episode of glucose less than 60 mg/dL were significantly associated with lower GOSE score. Conclusions Glucose variability was significantly associated with poorer long-term functional outcome in patients with TBI as measured by the GOSE score. Well-designed protocols to minimize glucose variability may be key in improving long-term functional outcome.

ACNP intensivist: A new ICU care delivery model and its supporting educational programs

The purposes of this article are to describe a physician (MD)/acute care nurse practitioner (ACNP) intensivist model for delivery of critical care services in a tertiary academic medical center and to describe an innovative nurse practitioner educational program developed to support the model. In an effort to address the current shortage of intensivists, Vanderbilt Medical Center has developed and refined a multidisciplinary intensivist MD/ACNP teams to provide expanded critical care services. The ACNPs, in collaboration with intensivist MDs, function as intensivist teams and are responsible for developing and executing the daily medical plan, bedside procedures, and emergency response. These teams provide 24-h a day coverage of tertiary level ICUs, and provide several unique benefits over traditional resident ICU staffing models. As the concept of the MD/ACNP intensivist team has developed, Vanderbilt University School of Nursing ACNP Program has expanded its curriculum to provide graduates with the knowledge, skills, and experiences to safely manage unstable critically ill patients. Multidisciplinary critical care teams of MD intensivists who work in collaboration with ACNP intensivists address the current shortfall of intensivists and represent a cost-effective means for expanding ICU coverage and increasing ICU bed availability while maintaining Leap Frog ICU staffing compliance.

Glucose variability negatively impacts long-term functional outcome in patients with traumatic brain injury

PurposeSignificant glycemic excursions (so-called glucose variability) affect the outcome of generic critically ill patients but has not been well studied in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of glucose variability on long-term functional outcome of patients with TBI. Material and MethodsA noncomputerized tight glucose control protocol was used in our intensivist model surgical intensive care unit. The relationship between the glucose variability and long-term (a median of 6 months after injury) functional outcome defined by extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) was analyzed using ordinal logistic regression models. Glucose variability was defined by SD and percentage of excursion (POE) from the preset range glucose level. ResultsA total of 109 patients with TBI under tight glucose control had long-term GOSE evaluated. In univariable analysis, there was a significant association between lower GOSE score and higher mean glucose, higher SD, POE more than 60, POE 80 to 150, and single episode of glucose less than 60 mg/dL but not POE 80 to 110. After adjusting for possible confounding variables in multivariable ordinal logistic regression models, higher SD, POE more than 60, POE 80 to 150, and single episode of glucose less than 60 mg/dL were significantly associated with lower GOSE score. ConclusionsGlucose variability was significantly associated with poorer long-term functional outcome in patients with TBI as measured by the GOSE score. Well-designed protocols to minimize glucose variability may be key in improving long-term functional outcome.

Application of a Trauma Intensivist Model to a Level II Community Hospital Trauma Program Improves Intensive Care Unit Throughput

Critical care-trained trauma surgeons are the ideal care provider for severely injured patients. This "captain of the ship" (COS) assumes complete responsibility of the patient, from initial resuscitation to eventual discharge. Unlike American College of Surgeons-verified Level I centers, many nonacademic, community hospital trauma centers use a more fragmented approach, with care in the intensive care unit (ICU) delegated to a committee of multiple specialists. We hypothesized that dedicated trauma intensivists as COS in a community hospital could improve ICU outcome. Beginning from September 2005, dedicated full-time trauma intensivists, without any resident coverage, assumed primary responsibility of all trauma patients admitted to a Level II Pennsylvania state verified trauma center. The ICU care was uninterrupted 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Subspecialty consultations, for recommendations in care only, were selectively obtained as clinically indicated. We compared the 3 years before the implementation of the COS model (PRE: 2003-2005) with the 3 years after the model (POST: 2006-2008). A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. There were equal numbers of patients admitted to the ICU setting in both the periods. In the PRE and POST periods, both age (46.9 years vs. 52.4 years; p < 0.001) and Injury Severity Score (16.1 vs. 16.7; p = 0.01) were of significance. We observed significant differences in ventilator days (mean, 8 days vs. 6 days; p = 0.002) and mean ICU days (4.9 days vs. 4.4 days; p < 0.001) across the study periods. Days to tracheostomy also achieved statistical significance (9.1 vs. 8.1; p = 0.03). The number of medical consults decreased by 19% in the POST group (p < 0.001). Hospital stay days were not statistically different (7.4 vs. 7.2; p = 0.18). After adjusting for higher age and Injury Severity Score in the POST period, we noted no difference in the expected mortality rate. A trauma intensivist-driven model can be successfully adopted in a nonacademic community trauma program, without the need for a residency program. A decentralized ICU care model produces inefficiencies, diminishes the role of the trauma service, and decreases the overall throughput of trauma patients.

The effect of implementing high-intensity intensive care unit staffing model on outcome of critically ill oncology patients*

Implementing high-intensity staffing model improves outcome in general intensive care units (ICUs). We studied the effect of implementing such a model on the outcome of critically ill medical patients in an oncology ICU. We compared admission rates, ICU mortality rates (MRs), 28-day MRs, length of stay (LOS) for patients discharged alive, and bed turnover rates of medical patients admitted to the ICU in the year 2004 (before an intensivist model was established) with those in the years 2006 and 2007 (after the model was established). We allowed for 1 year of transition to implement the changes required including the transformation of the ICU to a closed ICU with daily multidisciplinary rounds led by an intensivist as described in the Leapfrog model. ICU admissions increased from 236 patients (2004) to 388 (2006) and 446 (2007). There was no significant difference in the disease severity of illness when compared by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, 20.6 (before) vs. 20.9 (after) (p = 0.386). ICU MR for the consecutive years decreased from 35.17% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.08-41.26) to 23.97% (95% CI: 19.72-28.22) and 22.87% (95% CI: 18.97-26.77), and 28-day MRs decreased from 47.69% (95% CI: 40.68-54.7) to 38.24% (95% CI: 32.91-43.58) and 29.84% (95% CI: 24.79-34.89). LOS (for patients who survived) decreased from a mean of 4.26 days (95% CI: 3.19-5.33) to 2.63 (95% CI: 2.4-2.86) and 2.63 (95% CI: 2.4-2.86). Bed turnover rates increased from 5.0 patient/bed (95% CI: 4.22-5.78) to 6.9 patient/bed (95% CI: 6.04-7.77) and 7.56 patient/bed (95% CI: 6.67-8.44). Implementing a high-intensity staffing model is associated with significant improvements in MRs, LOS, and bed utilization of critically ill oncology patients.

Delivery of Critical Care in North American Burn Centers

The management of severely ill patients is an essential component of burn management. As critical care practices become more specialized, and payers such as the Leapfrog group insist on organizational structure for critical care delivery, we sought to determine how critical care is delivered in North American burn centers. Many surgical and medical intensive care units (ICUs) follow an intensivist model with the following features: 1) ICU physician-director is board-certified in critical care, 2) more than 50% of the ICU physicians are board-certified in critical care, and 3) an intensive care team has authority to write patient orders. We hypothesized that the intensivist model is uncommon in North American burn centers. One hundred twenty-seven burn surgeons were surveyed using a web-based questionnaire that addressed institutional volume, attending critical care certification, involvement of intensivist teams, and implementation of evidenced-based practices. A total of 64 surgeons completed the survey (51%). In accordance with several intensivist, model criteria varied by ICU volume and verification status. Lower ICU volume centers are more likely to have an intensivist team that rounds daily (69% vs. 29%, P = .02). Nonverified centers are more likely to have ICU attending without responsibilities outside of the ICU (22% vs. 0%, P = .01). Verified centers are more likely to have dedicated ICU morbidity and mortality conferences (63% vs. 35%, P = .02). Results of this survey indicate that many North American Burn Centers do not use the intensivist model of critical care delivery.

Team care: beyond open and closed intensive care units

Evidence supporting dedicated intensivist staffing in intensive care units is growing. Despite clinical and economic benefits, medical staff politics and a shortage of intensivists impede the intensivist model. The purpose of this paper is to accelerate patient's exposure to the benefits of intensivists, and introduce team care in the intensive care unit. The cost savings achieved through intensivist staffing range from $510,000 to $3.3 million. The intensivist model may only have been adopted by 4% of intensive care units. Barriers to implementing the model are shortage of intensivists, reimbursement for intensivists, and political will. Four attributes make the model ideal: physical presence, knowledge of critical care practice, coordination of team care, and unit management. It may be helpful to not label intensive care units as open or closed and consider team care, whereby hospitals seek to achieve the attributes of the model given their resources and culture. Intensivists save lives and costs. By working toward team care, hospitals may achieve a successful intensivist model, and patients may realize the benefits of spending less for healthcare and living longer. To achieve this model, physician and hospital leaders must form a partnership.

The Delivery of Critical Care Services in US Trauma Centers: Is the Standard Being Met?

Although there is substantial evidence supporting the benefits of an intensivist model of critical care delivery, the extent to which this model has been adopted by trauma centers across the United States is unknown. We set out to evaluate how critical care is delivered in Level I and II trauma centers and the extent to which these centers implement evidence-based patient care practices known to improve outcome.All Level I and Level II trauma centers in the United States were surveyed using a previously validated questionnaire pertaining to the organizational characteristics of critical care units. Questions identifying the impediments to the implementation of an intensivist model of critical care delivery were added to the original survey. An intensivist model intensive care unit (ICU) was defined as one meeting all of the following criteria: a) the physician director was board certified in critical care; b) >50% of physicians responsible for care were board certified in critical care; c) an intensivist made daily rounds on the patients; and d) an intensive care team had the authority to write orders on the patients. The survey respondents were also queried regarding the extent to which they complied with evidence-based guidelines for care in the ICU.The overall response rate was 65% (295 centers). Only 61% of Level I centers and 22% of Level II centers provided an intensivist model of critical care delivery. Sixty-nine percent of centers had a form of collaborative care with an intensivist, but few centers had dedicated intensivists without responsibilities outside the ICU. The most common reason cited for not involving an intensivist in the delivery of critical care services was a concern regarding a loss of continuity of care. There was limited implementation of evidence-based practices in the ICU; the model of critical care delivery had no effect on rates of implementation of these practices.The process of trauma center verification and designation should assure a high quality of trauma care. In keeping with these expectations of quality, the delivery of critical care services in trauma centers should evolve to a model that both includes the trauma surgeon in the care of the injured and allows for collaboration with a dedicated intensivist, who may or may not be a surgeon. The benefits of an intensivist model might be distinct from the utilization of evidence-based practices, suggesting that there might be incremental benefit in using these practices as markers of quality.