Search

Background: Invasive procedures are a core aspect of pulmonary and critical care practice. Procedures performed in the intensive care unit can be divided into high-risk, low-volume (HRLV) procedures and low-risk, high-volume (LRHV) procedures. HRLV procedures include cricothyroidotomy, pericardiocentesis, Blakemore tube placement, and bronchial blocker placement. LRHV procedures include arterial line placement, central venous catheter placement, thoracentesis, and flexible bronchoscopy. Despite the frequency and importance of procedures in critical care medicine, little is known about the similarities and differences in procedural training between different Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) and Critical Care Medicine (CCM) training programs. Furthermore, differences in procedural training practices for HRLV and LRHV procedures have not previously been described. Objective: To assess procedural training practices in PCCM and CCM fellowship programs in the United States, and compare differences in training between HRLV and LRHV procedures. Methods: A novel survey instrument was developed and disseminated to PCCM and CCM program directors and associate program directors at PCCM and CCM fellowship programs in the United States to assess procedural teaching practices for HRLV and LRHV procedures. Results: The survey was sent to 221 fellowship programs, 168 PCCM and 34 CCM, with 70 unique respondents (31.7% response rate). Of the procedural educational strategies assessed, each strategy was used significantly more frequently for LRHV versus HRLV procedures. The majority of respondents (51.1%) report having no dedicated training for HRLV procedures versus 6.9% reporting no dedicated training for any LRHV procedure (P

Rationale: Clinical and research training opportunities in global health are of increasing interest to medical trainees, but little is known about such opportunities in U.S.-based pulmonary and pulmonary/critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship programs. Objectives: Summarize currently available global health–related training opportunities and identify potential barriers to implementing global health curricula among U.S.-based PCCM fellowship programs. Methods: We sent a confidential, online, targeted needs assessment to PCCM fellowship program directors and associate program directors. Data collected included program demographics, currently available global health–related clinical and research training opportunities, potential barriers to the implementation of global health–related programmatic content, and perceived interest in global health–related training opportunities by current and/or prospective trainees. To evaluate for nonresponse bias, we performed an online search to identify global health–related training opportunities offered by nonresponding programs. Results: Out of 171 surveyed programs, 63 PCCM fellowship programs (37%) provided survey responses. Most responses (n = 56, 89%) were from combined PCCM training programs; 66% (n = 40) of programs offered at least one component of global health–related clinical or research training. Overall, 27% (n = 17) had a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Research Training Grant (National Institutes of Health T32), 73% (n = 46) had fewer than 35 faculty members, and 51% (n = 32) had at least one faculty member conducting global health–focused research. Most responding programs (66%, n = 40) offered at least one global health–related educational component. Among programs that would like to offer global health–related training components, the most common barriers included competing priorities for lecture content and a lack of in-division mentors with global health experience, a champion for global health–related activities, and established partnerships outside the United States. Conclusions: PCCM program leaders are interested in offering global health–related training opportunities, but important barriers include lack of mentorship, dedicated fellowship time, and established global partnerships. Future research is needed to better understand global health–related interests and training needs of incoming fellows and to design creative solutions for providing global health–related training across academic institutions with variable global health–related training capacities.

The explosion of the opioid epidemic in the United States and across the world has been met with advances in pharmacologic therapy for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Long-acting naltrexone is a promising strategy, but its use has important implications for critical care, as it may interfere with or complicate sedation and analgesia. Currently, there are two available formulations of long-acting naltrexone, which are distinguished by different administration routes and distinct pharmacokinetics. The use of long-acting naltrexone may be identified through a variety of strategies (such as physical examination, laboratory testing, and medical record review), and is key to the safe provision of sedation and analgesia during critical illness. Perioperative experience caring for patients receiving long-acting naltrexone informs management in the intensive care unit. Important lessons include the use of multimodal analgesia strategies and anticipating patients' demonstrating variable sensitivity to opioids. For the critically ill patient, however, there are important distinctions to emphasize, including changes in drug metabolism and medication interactions. By compiling and incorporating the currently available literature, we provide critical care physicians with recommendations for the sedation and analgesia for critically ill patients receiving long-acting naltrexone therapy.

Many pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellows are interested in improving their teaching skills as well as learning about careers as clinician educators. Educational opportunities in PCCM fellowship programs designed to address these interests have not been well characterized in U.S. training programs.We aimed to characterize educational content and structure for training fellows to teach in PCCM fellowship programs. We evaluated three major domains: (1) existing educational opportunities, (2) PCCM program directors' attitudes toward the importance of teaching fellows how to teach, and (3) potential components of an optimal teaching skills curriculum for PCCM fellows.We surveyed program and associate program directors who were members of the Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors in 2014. Survey domains included existing teaching skills content and structure, presence of a formal medical education curriculum or clinician educator track, perceived barriers to teaching fellows teaching skills, and open-ended qualitative inquiries about the ideal curricula. Data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.Of 158 invited Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors members, 85 program directors and associate directors responded (53.8% response rate). Annual curricular time dedicated to teaching skills varied widely (median, 3 h; mean, 5.4 h; interquartile range, 2.0-6.3 h), with 17 respondents (20%) allotting no time to teaching fellows to teach and 14 respondents (17%) dedicating more than 10 hours. Survey participants stated that the optimal duration for training fellows in teaching skills was significantly less than what they reported was actually occurring (median optimal duration, 1.5 h/yr; mean, 2.1 h/yr; interquartile range, 1.5-3.5 h/yr; P0.001). Only 28 (33.7%) had a formal curriculum for teaching medical education skills. Qualitative analyses identified several barriers to implementing formal teaching skills curricula, including "time," "financial resources," "competing priorities," and "lack of expert faculty."While prior work has demonstrated that fellows are interested in obtaining medical education skills, PCCM program directors and associate directors noted significant challenges to implementing formal educational opportunities to teach fellows these skills. Effective strategies are needed to design, implement, sustain, and assess teaching skills curricula for PCCM fellowships.

Patients with ventilator-dependent respiratory failure have improved outcomes at centers with greater expertise; yet, most patients are not treated in such facilities. Efforts to align care for respiratory failure and hospital capability would necessarily require interhospital transfer.To characterize the prevalence and the patient and hospital factors associated with interhospital transfer of adults residing in Florida with ventilator-dependent respiratory failure.We performed a retrospective, observational study using Florida Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data. We selected patients 18 years of age and older with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes of respiratory failure and mechanical ventilation during 2012 and 2013, and we identified cohorts of patients that did and did not undergo interhospital transfer. We obtained patient sociodemographic and clinical variables and categorized hospitals into subtypes on the basis of patient volume and services provided: large, medium (nonprofit or for-profit), and small.Interhospital transfer was our primary outcome measure. Patient sociodemographics, clinical variables, and hospital types were used as covariates. We identified 2,580 patients with ventilator-dependent respiratory failure who underwent interhospital transfer. Overall, transfer was uncommon, with only 2.9% of patients being transferred. In a hierarchical model, age less than 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.77-2.45) and tracheostomy (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 2.80-3.65) were associated with higher odds of transfer, whereas having Medicaid was associated with lower odds of transfer than having commercial insurance (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75). Additionally, care in medium-sized for-profit hospitals was associated with lower odds of transfer (OR, 1.37 vs. 2.70) than care in medium nonprofit hospitals, despite similar hospital characteristics.In Florida, interhospital transfer of patients with ventilator-dependent respiratory failure is uncommon and more likely among younger, commercially insured, medically resource-intensive patients. For-profit hospitals are less likely to transfer than nonprofit hospitals. In future studies, researchers should test for geographic variations and examine the clinical implications of selectivity in interhospital transfer of patients with ventilator-dependent respiratory failure.