Critical Care Staffing in Pandemics and Disasters: A Consensus Report from a Sub-committee of the Task Force for Mass Critical Care- Systems Strategies to Sustain the Healthcare Workforce

BACKGROUND

The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented mental health disturbances, burnout, and moral distress among healthcare workers, impacting their ability to care for themselves and their patients.

METHODS

The Workforce Sustainment subcommittee of the Task Force for Mass Critical Care (TFMCC) utilized a consensus development process, incorporating evidence from literature review with expert opinion through a modified Delphi approach to determine factors impacting mental health, burnout, and moral distress in healthcare workers, in order to propose necessary actions to help prevent these issues and enhance workforce resilience, sustainment, and retention.

RESULTS

Consolidation of evidence gathered from literature review and expert opinion resulted in 197 total statements that were synthesized into 14 major suggestions. These suggestions were organized into three categories: (1) mental health and wellbeing for staff in medical settings, (2) system-level support and leadership, and (3) research priorities and gaps. Suggestions include both general and specific occupational interventions to support healthcare worker basic physical needs, psychological distress, reduce moral distress and burnout, and foster mental health and resilience.

CONCLUSIONS

The Workforce Sustainment subcommittee of the TFMCC offers evidence-informed operational strategies to assist healthcare workers and hospitals plan, prevent, and treat the factors impacting healthcare worker mental health, burnout, and moral distress to improve resilience and retention following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mass Critical Care Surge Response During COVID-19: Implementation of Contingency Strategies - A Preliminary Report of Findings From the Task Force for Mass Critical Care

Background

After the publication of a 2014 consensus statement regarding mass critical care during public health emergencies, much has been learned about surge responses and the care of overwhelming numbers of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gaps in prior pandemic planning were identified and require modification in the midst of severe ongoing surges throughout the world.

Research Question

A subcommittee from The Task Force for Mass Critical Care (TFMCC) investigated the most recent COVID-19 publications coupled with TFMCC members anecdotal experience in order to formulate operational strategies to optimize contingency level care, and prevent crisis care circumstances associated with increased mortality.

Study Design and Methods

TFMCC adopted a modified version of established rapid guideline methodologies from the World Health Organization and the Guidelines International Network-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. With a consensus development process incorporating expert opinion to define important questions and extract evidence, the TFMCC developed relevant pandemic surge suggestions in a structured manner, incorporating peer-reviewed literature, “gray” evidence from lay media sources, and anecdotal experiential evidence.

Results

Ten suggestions were identified regarding staffing, load-balancing, communication, and technology. Staffing models are suggested with resilience strategies to support critical care staff. ICU surge strategies and strain indicators are suggested to enhance ICU prioritization tactics to maintain contingency level care and to avoid crisis triage, with early transfer strategies to further load-balance care. We suggest that intensivists and hospitalists be engaged with the incident command structure to ensure two-way communication, situational awareness, and the use of technology to support critical care delivery and families of patients in ICUs.

Interpretation

A subcommittee from the TFMCC offers interim evidence-informed operational strategies to assist hospitals and communities to plan for and respond to surge capacity demands resulting from COVID-19.

The US Strategic National Stockpile Ventilators in Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Comparison of Functionality and Analysis Regarding the Emergency Purchase of 200,000 Devices

BACKGROUND

Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was serious concern that the United States would encounter a shortfall of mechanical ventilators. In response, the US government, using the Defense Production Act, ordered the development of 200,000 ventilators from 11 different manufacturers. These ventilators have different capabilities, and whether all are able to support COVID-19 patients is not evident.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Evaluate ventilator requirements for affected COVID-19 patients, assess the clinical performance of current US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) ventilators employed during the pandemic, and finally, compare ordered ventilators' functionality based on COVID-19 patient needs.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Current published literature, publicly available documents, and lay press articles were reviewed by a diverse team of disaster experts. Data were assembled into tabular format, which formed the basis for analysis and future recommendations.

RESULTS

COVID-19 patients often develop severe hypoxemic acute respiratory failure and adult respiratory defense syndrome (ARDS), requiring high levels of ventilator support. Current SNS ventilators were unable to fully support all COVID-19 patients, and only approximately half of newly ordered ventilators have the capacity to support the most severely affected patients; ventilators with less capacity for providing high-level support are still of significant value in caring for many patients.

INTERPRETATION

Current SNS ventilators and those on order are capable of supporting most but not all COVID-19 patients. Technologic, logistic, and educational challenges encountered from current SNS ventilators are summarized, with potential next-generation SNS ventilator updates offered.

Improving Postoperative Handoff in a Surgical Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based research demonstrates that postoperative formalized handoff improves communication and satisfaction among hospital staff members, leading to improved patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To improve postoperative patient safety in the surgical intensive care unit of a tertiary academic medical center.

METHODS

A verbal and written formal reporting method was designed, implemented, and evaluated. The intervention created an admission "time-out," allowing the handoff from surgical and anesthesia teams to the intensive care unit team and bedside nurses to occur in a more structured manner. Before and 1 year after implementation of the intervention, nurses completed surveys on the quality of postoperative handoff.

RESULTS

After the intervention, the proportion of nurses who reported receiving handoff from the surgical team increased from 20% to 60% (P < .001). More nurses felt satisfied with the surgical handoff (46% before vs 74% after the intervention; P < .001), and more nurses frequently felt included in the handoff process (42% vs 74%; P < .001). Nurses perceived improved communication with surgical teams (93%), anesthesia teams (89%), and the intensive care unit team (94%), resulting in a perception of better patient care (88%).

CONCLUSION

After implementation of a systematic multidisciplinary handoff process, surgical intensive care nurses reported improved frequency and completeness of the postoperative handoff process, resulting in a perception of better patient care.

Improving Family Satisfaction and Participation in Decision Making in an Intensive Care Unit

Background

Survey data revealed that families of patients in a surgical intensive care unit were not satisfied with their participation in decision making or with how well the multidisciplinary team worked together.

Objectives

To develop and implement an evidence-based communication algorithm and evaluate its effect in improving satisfaction among patients’ families.

Methods

A multidisciplinary team developed an algorithm that included bundles of communication interventions at 24, 72, and 96 hours after admission to the unit. The algorithm included clinical triggers, which if present escalated the algorithm. A pre-post design using process improvement methods was used to compare families’ satisfaction scores before and after implementation of the algorithm.

Results

Satisfaction scores for participation in decision making (45% vs 68%; z = −2.62, P = .009) and how well the health care team worked together (64% vs 83%; z = −2.10, P = .04) improved significantly after implementation.

Conclusions

Use of an evidence-based structured communication algorithm may be a way to improve satisfaction of families of intensive care patients with their participation in decision making and their perception of how well the unit’s team works together.