Search

Objectives: Few surveys have focused on physician moral distress, burnout, and professional fulfilment. We assessed physician wellness and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design: Cross-sectional survey using four validated instruments., Setting: Sixty-two sites in Canada and the United States., Subjects: Attending physicians (adult, pediatric; intensivist, nonintensivist) who worked in North American ICUs., Intervention: None., Measurements and Main Results: We analysed 431 questionnaires (43.3% response rate) from 25 states and eight provinces. Respondents were predominantly male (229 [55.6%]) and in practice for 11.8 ± 9.8 years. Compared with prepandemic, respondents reported significant intrapandemic increases in days worked/mo, ICU bed occupancy, and self-reported moral distress (240 [56.9%]) and burnout (259 [63.8%]). Of the 10 top-ranked items that incited moral distress, most pertained to regulatory/organizational ( n = 6) or local/institutional ( n = 2) issues or both ( n = 2). Average moral distress (95.6 ± 66.9), professional fulfilment (6.5 ± 2.1), and burnout scores (3.6 ± 2.0) were moderate with 227 physicians (54.6%) meeting burnout criteria. A significant dose-response existed between COVID-19 patient volume and moral distress scores. Physicians who worked more days/mo and more scheduled in-house nightshifts, especially combined with more unscheduled in-house nightshifts, experienced significantly more moral distress. One in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We identified four coping profiles (active/social, avoidant, mixed/ambivalent, infrequent) that were associated with significant differences across all wellness measures., Conclusions: Despite moderate intrapandemic moral distress and burnout, physicians experienced moderate professional fulfilment. However, one in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We highlight potentially modifiable factors at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels to enhance physician wellness., Competing Interests: Dr. Burns disclosed that the Canadian Critical Care Society (CCSS) paid for the statistical analyses. Dr. Lorens received funding from the CCCS. Drs. Lorens and Kerlin disclosed work for hire. Drs. Viglianti, Kohn, Peltan, and Schnapp received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Fox-Robichaud’s institution received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Hamilton Academic Hospitals. Dr. Mathews’ institution received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); he received funding from Roivant/Kinevant Sciences. Dr. Jain is supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) T32AG019134, the Pepper Scholar Award from Yale Claude D. Pepper Older American Independence Center (P30AG021342), NIA of the NIH GEMSSTAR Award (R03AG078942), Parker B. Francis Fellowship Award, and Yale Physician-Scientist Development Award. Drs. Akgun and Crothers disclosed government work. Dr. Gershengorn received funding from the American Thoracic Society (ATS), Gilead Sciences, and Southeastern Critical Care Summit. Dr. Martin’s institution received funding from BARDA; he received funding from Genetech. Dr. Stapleton disclosed that she is chair of DSMB for Altimmune and a member of the ATS Board of Directors 2019–2021 (elected to Chair the Critical Care Assembly which includes a position on the Board). Dr. Attia’s institution received funding from the NHBLI (NHLBI K23 HL129888 and R03 [pending]), the Centers for Aids Research, and Pediatric HIV/AIDS Cohort Study. Dr. Maddux’s institution received funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23HD096018) and the Francis Family Foundation. Dr. Bagshaw received funding from Baxter and Bioporto. Dr. Crothers’ institution received funding from the NIH and Veteran’s Affairs. Dr. Peltan’s institution received funding from Regeneron and Asahi Kasei Pharma; he received funding from the NIH (K23GM129661) and Janssen. Dr. Schnapp received funding from UptoDate and Elsevier. Dr. Kraft’s institution received funding from the NIH, the American Lung Association, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca Consulting; she received funding from Sanofi, Astra-Zeneca, Chiesi Speaking, and UptoDate; she disclosed she is a cofounder and Chief Medical Officer of RaeSedo LLC. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: To evaluate the Chronic Liver Failure-Consortium Acute on Chronic Liver Failure score in acute on chronic liver failure patients admitted to ICUs from different global regions and compare discrimination ability with previously published scores., Design: Retrospective pooled analysis., Setting: Academic ICUs in Canada (Edmonton, Vancouver) and Europe (Paris, Barcelona, Chronic liver failure/Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in Cirrhosis [CANONIC] study)., Patients: Sample of analysis of 867 cirrhotic patients with acute on chronic liver failure admitted to ICU. Cumulative incidence functions of death were estimated by acute on chronic liver failure grade at admission and at day 3. Survival discrimination abilities of Chronic Liver Failure-Consortium Acute on Chronic Liver Failure, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, and Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores were compared., Interventions: ICU admission for organ support., Measurements and Main Results: At admission 169 subjects (19%) had acute on chronic liver failure 1, 302 (35%) acute on chronic liver failure 2, and 396 (46%) had acute on chronic liver failure 3 with 90-mortality rates of 33%, 40%, and 74%, respectively (p < 0.001). At admission, Chronic Liver Failure-Consortium Acute on Chronic Liver Failure demonstrated superior discrimination at 90 days compared with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (n = 532; concordance index 0.67 vs 0.62; p = 0.0027) and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (n = 666; 0.68 vs 0.64; p = 0.0035), but not Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (n = 845; 0.68 vs 0.67; p = 0.3). A Chronic Liver Failure-Consortium Acute on Chronic Liver Failure score greater than 70 at admission or on day 3 was associated with 90-day mortality rates of approximately 90%. Ninety-day mortality in grade 3 acute on chronic liver failure patients at admission who demonstrated improvement by day 3 was 40% (vs 79% in patients who did not)., Conclusions: The Chronic Liver Failure-Consortium Acute on Chronic Liver Failure demonstrated better discrimination at day 28 and day 90 compared with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Child-Turcotte-Pugh. Patients who demonstrated clinical improvement post-ICU admission (e.g., acute on chronic liver failure 3 to 1 or 2) at day 3 had better outcomes than those who did not. In high-risk ICU patients (Chronic Liver Failure-Consortium Acute on Chronic Liver Failure > 70), decisions regarding transition to palliation should be explored between patient families and the ICU providers after a short trial of therapy.