No abstract

Introduction: This narrative review focusing on critical care echocardiography (CCE) has been written by a group of experts in the field, with the aim of outlining the state of the art in CCE in the 10 years after its official recognition and definition. Results: In the last 10 years, CCE has become an essential branch of critical care ultrasonography and has gained general acceptance. Its use, both as a diagnostic tool and for hemodynamic monitoring, has increased markedly, influencing contemporary cardiorespiratory management. Recent studies suggest that the use of CCE may have a positive impact on outcomes. CCE may be used in critically ill patients in many different clinical situations, both in their early evaluation of in the emergency department and during intensive care unit (ICU) admission and stay. CCE has also proven its utility in perioperative settings, as well as in the management of mechanical circulatory support. CCE may be performed with very simple diagnostic objectives. This application, referred to as basic CCE, does not require a high level of training. Advanced CCE, on the other hand, uses ultrasonography for full evaluation of cardiac function and hemodynamics, and requires extensive training, with formal certification now available. Indeed, recent years have seen the creation of worldwide certification in advanced CCE. While transthoracic CCE remains the most commonly used method, the transesophageal route has gained importance, particularly for intubated and ventilated patients. Conclusion: CCE is now widely accepted by the critical care community as a valuable tool in the ICU and emergency department, and in perioperative settings.

Objectives: To assess—by literature review and expert consensus—workforce, workload, and burnout considerations among intensivists and advanced practice providers. Design: Data were synthesized from monthly expert consensus and literature review. Setting: Workforce and Workload section workgroup of the Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine Task Force. Measurements and Main Results: Multidisciplinary care teams led by intensivists are an essential component of critical care delivery. Advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) are progressively being integrated into ICU practice models. The ever-increasing number of patients with complex, life-threatening diseases, concentration of ICU beds in few centralized hospitals, expansion of specialty ICU services, and desire for 24/7 availability have contributed to growing intensivist staffing concerns. Such staffing challenges may negatively impact practitioner wellness, team perception of care quality, time available for teaching, and length of stay when the patient to intensivist ratio is greater than or equal to 15. Enhanced team communication and reduction of practice variation are important factors for improved patient outcomes. A diverse workforce adds value and enrichment to the overall work environment. Formal succession planning for ICU leaders is crucial to the success of critical care organizations. Implementation of a continuous 24/7 ICU coverage care model in high-acuity, high-volume centers should be based on patient-centered outcomes. High levels of burnout syndrome are common among intensivists. Prospective analyses of interventions to decrease burnout within the ICU setting are limited. However, organizational interventions are felt to be more effective than those directed at individuals. Conclusions: Critical care workforce and staffing models are myriad and based on several factors including local culture and resources, ICU organization, and strategies to reduce burden on the ICU provider workforce. Prospective studies to assess and avoid the burnout syndrome among intensivists and advanced practice providers are needed.