Well-Being Among Respiratory Therapists in an Academic Medical Center During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have revealed high rates of burnout among respiratory therapists (RTs), which has implications for patient care and outcomes as well as for the health care workforce. We sought to better understand RT well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to determine rates and identify determinants of well-being, including burnout and professional fulfillment, among RTs in ICUs. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study comprised of a survey administered quarterly from July 2020-May 2021 to critical-care health care professionals and semi-structured interviews from April-May 2021 with 10 ICU RTs within a single health center. We performed multivariable analyses to compare RT well-being to other professional groups and to evaluate changes in well-being over time. We analyzed qualitative interview data using thematic analysis, followed by mapping themes to the Maslow needs hierarchy. RESULTS: One hundred eight RTs responded to at least one quarterly survey. Eighty-two (75%) experienced burnout; 39 (36%) experienced professional fulfillment, and 62 (58%) reported symptoms of depression. Compared to clinicians of other professions in multivariable analyses, RTs were significantly more likely to experience burnout (odds ratio 2.32 [95% CI 1.41-3.81]) and depression (odds ratio 2.73 [95% CI 1.65-4.51]) and less likely to experience fulfillment (odds ratio 0.51 [95% CI 0.31-0.85]). We found that staffing challenges, safety concerns, workplace conflict, and lack of work-life balance led to burnout. Patient care, use of specialized skills, appreciation and a sense of community at work, and purpose fostered professional fulfillment. Themes identified were mapped to Maslow's hierarchy of needs; met needs led to professional fulfillment, and unmet needs led to burnout. CONCLUSIONS: ICU RTs experienced burnout during the pandemic at rates higher than other professions. To address RT needs, institutions should design and implement strategies to reduce burnout across all levels.

Characteristics, Outcomes, and Trends of Patients With COVID-19-Related Critical Illness at a Learning Health System in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to surge in the United States and globally. OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of COVID-19-related critical illness, including trends in outcomes and care delivery. DESIGN: Single-health system, multihospital retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Health System. PATIENTS: Adults with COVID-19-related critical illness who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure or shock during the initial surge of the pandemic. MEASUREMENTS: The primary exposure for outcomes and care delivery trend analyses was longitudinal time during the pandemic. The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death at any time, receipt of mechanical ventilation (MV), and readmissions. RESULTS: Among 468 patients with COVID-19-related critical illness, 319 (68.2%) were treated with MV and 121 (25.9%) with vasopressors. Outcomes were notable for an all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality rate of 29.9%, a median ICU stay of 8 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 17 days), a median hospital stay of 13 days (IQR, 7 to 25 days), and an all-cause 30-day readmission rate (among nonhospice survivors) of 10.8%. Mortality decreased over time, from 43.5% (95% CI, 31.3% to 53.8%) to 19.2% (CI, 11.6% to 26.7%) between the first and last 15-day periods in the core adjusted model, whereas patient acuity and other factors did not change. LIMITATIONS: Single-health system study; use of, or highly dynamic trends in, other clinical interventions were not evaluated, nor were complications. CONCLUSION: Among patients with COVID-19-related critical illness admitted to ICUs of a learning health system in the United States, mortality seemed to decrease over time despite stable patient characteristics. Further studies are necessary to confirm this result and to investigate causal mechanisms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Improving Prone Positioning for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome during the COVID-19 Pandemic. An Implementation-Mapping Approach.

Rationale: Prone positioning reduces mortality in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a feature of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite this, most patients with ARDS do not receive this lifesaving therapy.Objectives: To identify determinants of prone-positioning use, to develop specific implementation strategies, and to incorporate strategies into an overarching response to the COVID-19 crisis.Methods: We used an implementation-mapping approach guided by implementation-science frameworks. We conducted semistructured interviews with 30 intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians who staffed 12 ICUs within the Penn Medicine Health System and the University of Michigan Medical Center. We performed thematic analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We then conducted three focus groups with a task force of ICU leaders to develop an implementation menu, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change framework. The implementation strategies were adapted as part of the Penn Medicine COVID-19 pandemic response.Results: We identified five broad themes of determinants of prone positioning, including knowledge, resources, alternative therapies, team culture, and patient factors, which collectively spanned all five Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains. The task force developed five specific implementation strategies, including educational outreach, learning collaborative, clinical protocol, prone-positioning team, and automated alerting, elements of which were rapidly implemented at Penn Medicine.Conclusions: We identified five broad themes of determinants of evidence-based use of prone positioning for severe ARDS and several specific strategies to address these themes. These strategies may be feasible for rapid implementation to increase use of prone positioning for severe ARDS with COVID-19.

Benchmarking Critical Care Well-Being: Before and After the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Examine well-being, measured as burnout and professional fulfillment, across critical care healthcare professionals, ICUs, and hospitals within a health system; examine the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. DESIGN: To complement a longitudinal survey administered to medical critical care physicians at the end of an ICU rotation, which began in May 2018, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among critical care professionals across four hospitals in December 2018 to January 2019. We report the results of the cross-sectional survey and, to examine the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the longitudinal survey results from July 2019 to May 2020. SETTING: Academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Four-hundred eighty-one critical care professionals, including 353 critical care nurses, 58 advanced practice providers, 57 physicians, and 13 pharmacists, participated in the cross-sectional survey; 15 medical critical care physicians participated in the longitudinal survey through the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Burnout was present in 50% of ICU clinicians, ranging from 42% for critical care physicians to 55% for advanced practice providers. Professional fulfillment was less common at 37%, with significant variability across provider (p = 0.04), with a low of 23% among critical care pharmacists and a high of 53% among physicians. Well-being varied significantly at the hospital and ICU level. Workload and job demand were identified as drivers of burnout and meaning in work, culture and values of work community, control and flexibility, and social support and community at work were each identified as drivers of well-being. Between July 2019 and March 2020, burnout and professional fulfillment were present in 35% (15/43) and 58% (25/43) of medical critical care physician responses, respectively. In comparison, during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, burnout and professional fulfillment were present in 57% (12/21) and 38% (8/21), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout was common across roles, yet differed across ICUs and hospitals. Professional fulfillment varied by provider role. We identified potentially modifiable factors related to clinician well-being that can inform organizational strategies at the ICU and hospital level. Longitudinal studies, designed to assess the long-term impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the well-being of the critical care workforce, are urgently needed.