Search

Rationale: Geographic co-localization of patients and provider teams (geography) may improve care efficiency and quality. Patients requiring intermediate care present a unique challenge to the geographic model. Objective: Identify the best organizational and staffing model for intermediate care at our academic medical center. Methods: A modified nominal group technique was employed to assess the benefits and limitations of an existing model of intermediate care, identify and review potential alternative models, and choose a new model. Results: In addition to the institution's current model, the benefits and limitations of six alternative organizational and staffing models were characterized. The anticipated impact of each model on nurse: provider communication, maintenance of nursing competencies, nurse satisfaction, efficient utilization of technical and human resources, triage of patients to the unit, care continuity, and the impact on trainee education are described. After considering these features, stakeholders ranked a closed provider staffing model on a unit dedicated to intermediate care highest of the six alternative models. Important outcomes to monitor following transition to a closed staffing model included patient outcomes, nursing job satisfaction and retention, provider and trainee experience, unexpected patient transfers to higher or lower levels of care, and administrative costs. Conclusions: After considering six alternative staffing models for intermediate care, stakeholders ranked a closed provider staffing model highest. Further qualitative and quantitative comparisons to determine optimal models of intermediate care are needed.

Background: Burnout is common among physicians who care for critically ill patients and is known to contribute to worse patient outcomes. Fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) have risk factors that make them susceptible to burnout; for example, clinical environments that require increased intellectual and emotional demands with long hours. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has recognized the increasing importance of trainee burnout and encourages training programs to address burnout. Objective: To assess factors related to training and practice that posed a threat to the well-being among fellows training in PCCM and to obtain suggestions regarding how programs can improve fellow well-being. Methods: We conducted a qualitative content analysis of data collected from a prior cross-sectional electronic survey with free-response questions of fellows enrolled in pulmonary, PCCM, and critical care medicine training programs in the United States. Fellows were asked what factors posed a threat to their well-being and what changes their training program could implement. Responses were qualitatively coded and categorized into themes using thematic analysis. Results: A total of 427 fellows (44% of survey respondents) completed at least one free-response question. The majority of respondents (60%) identified as male and white/non-Hispanic (59%). The threats to well-being and burnout were grouped into five themes: clinical burden, individual factors, team culture, limited autonomy, and program resources. Clinical burden was the most common threat discussed by fellows. Fellows highlighted factors contributing to burnout that specifically pertained to trainees including challenging interpersonal relationships with attending physicians and limited protected educational time. Fellows proposed solutions addressing clinical care, changes at the program or institution level, and organizational culture changes to improve well-being. Conclusion: This study provides insight into factors fellows report as contributors to burnout and decreased well-being in addition to investigating fellow-driven solutions toward improving well-being. These solutions may help pulmonary, PCCM, and critical care medicine program directors better address fellow well-being in the future., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Thoracic Society.)

Competing Interests: Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures: None to disclose.

As quality improvement and patient safety come to play a larger role in health care, academic medical centers and health systems are poised to take a leadership role in addressing these issues. Academic medical centers can leverage their large integrated footprint and have the ability to innovate in this field. However, a robust quality management infrastructure is needed to support these efforts. In this context, quality and safety are often described at the executive level and at the unit level. Yet, the role of individual departments, which are often the dominant functional unit within a hospital, in realizing health system quality and safety goals has not been addressed. Developing a departmental quality management infrastructure is challenging because departments are diverse in composition, size, resources, and needs.In this article, the authors describe the model of departmental quality management infrastructure that has been implemented at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. This model leverages the fractal approach, linking departments horizontally to support peer and organizational learning and connecting departments vertically to support accountability to the hospital, health system, and board of trustees. This model also provides both structure and flexibility to meet individual departmental needs, recognizing that independence and interdependence are needed for large academic medical centers. The authors describe the structure, function, and support system for this model as well as the practical and essential steps for its implementation. They also provide examples of its early success.

Background: Mass critical care entails time-sensitive decisions and changes in the standard of care that it is possible to deliver. These circumstances increase provider uncertainty as well as patients' vulnerability and may, therefore, jeopardize disciplined, ethical decision-making. Planning for pandemics and disasters should incorporate ethics guidance to support providers who may otherwise make ad hoc patient care decisions that overstep ethical boundaries. This article provides consensus-developed suggestions about ethical challenges in caring for the critically ill or injured during pandemics or disasters. The suggestions in this article are important for all of those involved in any pandemic or disaster with multiple critically ill or injured patients, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials., Methods: We adapted the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines Oversight Committee's methodology to develop suggestions. Twenty-four key questions were developed, and literature searches were conducted to identify evidence for suggestions. The detailed literature reviews produced 144 articles. Based on their expertise within this domain, panel members also supplemented the literature search with governmental publications, interdisciplinary workgroup consensus documents, and other information not retrieved through PubMed. The literature in this field is not suitable to support evidence-based recommendations. Therefore, the panel developed expert opinion-based suggestions using a modified Delphi process., Results: We report the suggestions that focus on five essential domains: triage and allocation, ethical concerns of patients and families, ethical responsibilities to providers, conduct of research, and international concerns., Conclusions: Ethics issues permeate virtually all aspects of pandemic and disaster response. We have addressed some of the most pressing issues, focusing on five essential domains: triage and allocation, ethical concerns of patients and families, ethical responsibilities to providers, conduct of research, and international concerns. Our suggestions reflect the consensus of the Task Force. We recognize, however, that some suggestions, including those related to end-of-life care, may be controversial. We highlight the need for additional research and dialogue in articulating values to guide health-care decisions during disasters.