Burnout syndrome (BOS) occurs in all types of health-care professionals and is especially common in individuals who care for critically ill patients. The development of BOS is related to an imbalance ...of personal characteristics of the employee and work-related issues or other organizational factors. BOS is associated with many deleterious consequences, including increased rates of job turnover, reduced patient satisfaction, and decreased quality of care. BOS also directly affects the mental health and physical well-being of the many critical care physicians, nurses, and other health-care professionals who practice worldwide. Until recently, BOS and other psychological disorders in critical care health-care professionals remained relatively unrecognized. To raise awareness of BOS, the Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) developed this call to action. The present article reviews the diagnostic criteria, prevalence, causative factors, and consequences of BOS. It also discusses potential interventions that may be used to prevent and treat BOS. Finally, we urge multiple stakeholders to help mitigate the development of BOS in critical care health-care professionals and diminish the harmful consequences of BOS, both for critical care health-care professionals and for patients.
Burnout syndrome (BOS) occurs in all types of healthcare professionals and is especially common in individuals who care for critically ill patients. The development of BOS is related to an imbalance ...of personal characteristics of the employee and work-related issues or other organizational factors. BOS is associated with many deleterious consequences, including increased rates of job turnover, reduced patient satisfaction, and decreased quality of care. BOS also directly affects the mental health and physical well-being of the many critical care physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who practice worldwide. Until recently, BOS and other psychological disorders in critical care healthcare professionals remained relatively unrecognized. To raise awareness of BOS, the Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) developed this call to action. The present article reviews the diagnostic criteria, prevalence, causative factors, and consequences of BOS. It also discusses potential interventions that may be used to prevent and treat BOS. Finally, we urge multiple stakeholders to help mitigate the development of BOS in critical care healthcare professionals and diminish the harmful consequences of BOS, both for critical care healthcare professionals and for patients.
Burnout syndrome (BOS) occurs in all types of health-care professionals and is especially common in individuals who care for critically ill patients. The development of BOS is related to an imbalance ...of personal characteristics of the employee and work-related issues or other organizational factors. BOS is associated with many deleterious consequences, including increased rates of job turnover, reduced patient satisfaction, and decreased quality of care. BOS also directly affects the mental health and physical well-being of the many critical care physicians, nurses, and other health-care professionals who practice worldwide. Until recently, BOS and other psychological disorders in critical care health-care professionals remained relatively unrecognized. To raise awareness of BOS, the Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) developed this call to action. The present article reviews the diagnostic criteria, prevalence, causative factors, and consequences of BOS. It also discusses potential interventions that may be used to prevent and treat BOS. Finally, we urge multiple stakeholders to help mitigate the development of BOS in critical care health-care professionals and diminish the harmful consequences of BOS, both for critical care health-care professionals and for patients.
OBJECTIVES:To summarize the results of expert discussions and recommendations from a National Summit and survey on the promoting wellness and preventing and managing burnout in the ICU.
DATA ...SOURCES:Literature review; Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) Statement on Burnout Syndrome in Critical Care Healthcare ProfessionalsA Call for Action; CCSCʼs National Summit on Prevention and Management of Burnout in the ICU; and a descriptive survey on strategies for addressing burnout using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) (project-redcap.org).
DATA SYNTHESIS:Building on the CCSC call for action to address burnout among critical care professionals, the CCSC sponsored the National Summit on Prevention and Management of Burnout in the ICU with 55 invited experts in various fields including psychology, sociology, integrative medicine, psychiatry, suicide prevention, bereavement support, ethics, palliative care, meditation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, among others. Attendees joined breakout groups, to identify factors influencing burnout in ICU professionals and the value of organizational and individual interventions. As a follow-up to the Summit, a descriptive survey assessing strategies for addressing burnout was sent via email or newsletter blast with responses received from 680 CCSC members, including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, and others.
CONCLUSIONS:The Summit attendees identified the importance of raising awareness among critical care clinicians and key stakeholders, advocating for workplace changes to promote healthy work environments, and promoting research to further explore practical strategies to address, mitigate, and prevent burnout. Critical care clinicians reported that a number of initiatives are being implemented both at their hospitals and at the unit level to build resilience and address burnout prevention. However, other respondents reported that no measures were being used within their organizations, and that colleagues were experiencing burnout. Dissemination and application of resiliency building measures and strategies to address burnout in critical care clinicians are needed.
To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002.
The American College of ...Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding.
These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.
Interventions that lead to earlier liberation from mechanical ventilation can improve patient outcomes. This guideline, a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American ...College of Chest Physicians, provides evidence-based recommendations to optimize liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults.
Two methodologists performed evidence syntheses to summarize available evidence relevant to key questions about liberation from mechanical ventilation. The methodologists appraised the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and summarized the results in evidence profiles. The guideline panel then formulated recommendations after considering the balance of desirable consequences (benefits) versus undesirable consequences (burdens, adverse effects, and costs), the certainty in the evidence, and the feasibility and acceptability of various interventions. Recommendations were rated as strong or conditional.
The guideline panel made four conditional recommendations related to rehabilitation protocols, ventilator liberation protocols, and cuff leak tests. The recommendations were for acutely hospitalized adults mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours to receive protocolized rehabilitation directed toward early mobilization, be managed with a ventilator liberation protocol, be assessed with a cuff leak test if they meet extubation criteria but are deemed high risk for postextubation stridor, and be administered systemic steroids for at least 4 hours before extubation if they fail the cuff leak test.
The American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians recommendations are intended to support healthcare professionals in their decisions related to liberating critically ill adults from mechanical ventilation.
Burnout syndrome (BOS) occurs in all types of health care professionals and is especially common in individuals who care for critically ill patients. The development of BOS is related to an imbalance ...of personal characteristics of the employee and work-related issues or other organizational factors. BOS is associated with many deleterious consequences, including increased rates of job turnover, reduced patient satisfaction, and decreased quality of care. BOS also directly affects the mental health and physical well-being of the many critical care physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals who practice worldwide. Until recently, BOS and other psychological disorders in critical care health care professionals remained relatively unrecognized. To raise awareness of BOS, the Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) developed this call to action. The present article reviews the diagnostic criteria, prevalence, causative factors, and consequences of BOS. It also discusses potential interventions that may be used to prevent and treat BOS. Finally, we urge multiple stakeholders to help mitigate the development of BOS in critical care health care professionals and diminish the harmful consequences of BOS, both for critical care health care professionals and for patients.
Background An update of evidence-based guidelines concerning liberation from mechanical ventilation is needed as new evidence has become available. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) ...and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) have collaborated to provide recommendations to clinicians concerning liberation from the ventilator. Methods Comprehensive evidence syntheses, including meta-analyses, were performed to summarize all available evidence relevant to the guideline panel’s questions. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and the results were summarized in evidence profiles. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations developed and approved by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation. Results Recommendations for three population, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO) questions concerning ventilator liberation are presented in this document. The guideline panel considered the balance of desirable (benefits) and undesirable (burdens, adverse effects, costs) consequences, quality of evidence, feasibility, and acceptability of various interventions with respect to the selected questions. Conditional (weak) recommendations were made to use inspiratory pressure augmentation in the initial spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and to use protocols to minimize sedation for patients ventilated for more than 24 h. A strong recommendation was made to use preventive noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for high-risk patients ventilated for more than 24 h immediately after extubation to improve selected outcomes. The recommendations were limited by the quality of the available evidence. Conclusions The guideline panel provided recommendations for inspiratory pressure augmentation during an initial SBT, protocols minimizing sedation, and preventative NIV, in relation to ventilator liberation.
Patient-focused sedation and analgesia in the ICU encompasses a strategy of comprehensive structured management that matches initial evaluation, monitoring, medication selection, and the use of ...protocols with patient characteristics and needs. This is best accomplished through interdisciplinary management by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists. An early consideration is that of the potential predisposing and precipitating factors, as well as prior sedative or analgesic use, factors that may influence pharmacologic and supportive therapy. Frequent monitoring with validated tools improves communication among clinicians and plays an important role in detecting and treating pain and agitation while avoiding excessive or prolonged sedation. Patient-focused management encompasses selecting medications best suited to patient characteristics, including the presence of organ dysfunction that may influence drug metabolism or excessive risk for side effects. The use of protocols to optimize drug therapy has emerged as a key component of management, resulting in reductions in the duration of sedation, mechanical ventilation, and ICU length of stay demonstrated with strategies to titrate medications to specific targets, daily interruption of sedation, intermittent rather than continuous therapy, and analgesia-based therapy. While much attention is paid to the initiation and maintenance of therapy, greater emphasis must be placed on careful de-escalation of therapy in order to avoid analgesic or sedative withdrawal. Finally, more work is needed to explore the relationship of critical illness and sedation management with long-term psychological outcomes.
PDF
