BACKGROUND: Burnout is a major challenge in health care, but its prevalence has not been evaluated in practicing respiratory therapists (RTs). The purpose of this study was to identify RT burnout prevalence and factors associated with RT burnout. METHODS: An online survey was administered at 26 centers in the United States between January and March 2021. Validated quantitative cross-sectional surveys were used to measure burnout and leadership domains. The survey was sent to department directors and distributed by the department directors to their staffs. Data analysis was descriptive, and logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate risk factors, expressed as odds ratios (OR), for burnout. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 3,010 RTs; the response rate was 37%. Seventynine percent of the respondents reported burnout, 10% with severe, 32% with moderate, and 37% with mild burnout. Univariate analysis revealed that those with burnout worked more hours per week, worked more hours per week in the ICU, primarily cared for adult patients, primarily delivered care via RT protocols, reported inadequate RT staffing, reported being unable to complete assigned work, had more frequent exposure to COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019), had a lower leadership score, and fewer had a positive view of leadership. Logistic regression revealed that burnout climate (OR 9.38; P < .001), inadequate RT staffing (OR 2.08 to 3.19; P 5 .004 to .05), unable to complete all work (OR 2.14 to 5.57; P 5 .003 to .02), and missed work for any reason were associated with an increased risk of burnout (OR 1.96; P 5 .007). Not providing patient care (OR 0.18; P 5 .02) and a positive leadership score (.55; P 5 .02) were associated with a decreased risk of burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout was common among the RTs in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Good leadership was protective against burnout, whereas inadequate staffing, an inability to complete work, and a burnout climate were associated with burnout.

BACKGROUND: Burnout is a major problem in health care, with rates of approximately 33% and 50% in nurses and physicians, respectively, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Respiratory therapist (RT) burnout rates and drivers have not been specifically examined. The purpose of this project was to determine resilience and burnout resources available within respiratory care departments and to provide an estimate of pre-and post-COVID-19 RT burnout rates. METHODS: A survey was developed to evaluate resilience and burnout resources in respiratory care departments. The survey was posted online to the AARConnect management, education, adult acute care, neonatal/pediatrics, COVID-19, and help line communities. Data analysis was descriptive. Key drivers of burnout among RTs were identified from qualitative answers. RESULTS: There were 221 responses, and 72% reported experiencing burnout. Ten percent of the departments that responded measured burnout; 36% utilized resilience tools, and 83% offered free employee assistance for those struggling with burnout. In January 2020, 30% of departments reported an estimated burnout rate > 40%, which increased to 44% of departments (P 5 .007) in the COVID-19 pandemic period. The most common drivers reported were poor leadership (32%), high work load (31%), and staffing (29%); 93% of respondents agreed that burnout is a major problem in health care, 33% agreed that burnout is primarily driven by external factors, 92% agreed that RTs have a similar risk of burnout as other health care professionals, 73% agreed that they were comfortable discussing challenging situations with colleagues, 32% agreed that their leadership provided adequate support for those suffering from burnout, and 79% agreed that they would be open to utilizing resilience tools from the AARC or other professional organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents experienced burnout and few respiratory care departments measured burnout. Resilience resources were not commonly used but employee assistance and wellness programs were common. Key drivers of burnout identified were poor leadership, staffing, and high workloads.

Providing supplemental oxygen to hospitalized adults is a frequent practice and can be administered via a variety of devices. Oxygen therapy has evolved over the years, and clinicians should follow evidence-based practices to provide maximum benefit and avoid harm. This systematic review and subsequent clinical practice guidelines were developed to answer questions about oxygenation targets, monitoring, early initiation of high-flow oxygen (HFO), benefits of HFO compared to conventional oxygen therapy, and humidification of supplemental oxygen. Using a modification of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, 7 recommendations were developed to guide the delivery of supplemental oxygen to hospitalized adults: (1) aim for S pO 2 range of 94-98% for most hospitalized patients (88-92% for those with COPD), (2) the same S pO 2 range of 94-98% for critically ill patients, (3) promote early initiation of HFO, (4) consider HFO to avoid escalation to noninvasive ventilation, (5) consider HFO immediately postextubation to avoid re-intubation, (6) either HFO or conventional oxygen therapy may be used with patients who are immunocompromised, and (7) consider humidification for supplemental oxygen when flows > 4 L/min are used.

BACKGROUND: The Pennsylvania Respiratory Research Collaborative formed in January 2017 for the purpose of providing mentorship and opportunities to participate in statewide research, quality improvement, and evidence-based practice projects. The inaugural project was designed to investigate and describe the practice of respiratory therapy in Pennsylvania. METHODS: A survey related to the practice and business of in-patient respiratory therapy departments was developed and sent to managers/directors of every hospital within the state of Pennsylvania. The survey period was October 2017 to April 2018. Pennsylvania hospitals were contacted to ask the respiratory therapy manager/director to complete the electronic survey. One hundred eighty-eight hospitals with in-patient respiratory therapy departments were contacted; direct information for the respiratory therapy manager/director was obtained for 159 hospitals. RESULTS: Of the 159 hospitals sent the survey, 101 (63.5%) responded. Of the respondents, 52% were academic medical centers. For staff positions, 50% prefer a bachelor's degree, and 77.3% prefer the Registered Respiratory Therapist certification. However, managers are only able to hire preferred candidates 50% of the time. Clinical ladders are utilized in 29% of the responding institution, and protocols are utilized in 74% of hospitals, with the most common being ventilator (92%), bronchodilator (79%), airway clearance (56%), hyperinflation (41%), and disease-specific (23%). Respiratory therapists in 84% of the hospitals perform nontraditional procedures, with the most common being electrocardiography (35%), advanced procedures including intubation (20%), arterial line placement (14%), blind bronchoalveolar lavage (14%), and electroencephalography (12%). Respiratory therapists are utilized in alternative roles in 42% of hospitals. The most common alternative roles are patient educator (29%), outpatient clinics (21%), patient navigators (19%), transport (14%), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (6%), case managers (5%), research (5%), and telehealth (2%). CONCLUSIONS: The practice of respiratory therapy in the state of Pennsylvania varies greatly, with a small number of hospitals practicing at the top of their license.

No abstract