Discharge Disposition and Loss of Independence Among Survivors of COVID-19 Admitted to Intensive Care: Results From the SCCM Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS).

OBJECTIVES: To describe incidence and risk factors of loss of previous independent living through nonhome discharge or discharge home with health assistance in survivors of intensive care unit (ICU) admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DESIGN: Multicenter observational study including patients admitted to the ICU from January 2020 till June 30, 2021. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that there is a high risk of nonhome discharge in patients surviving ICU admission due to COVID-19. SETTING: Data were included from 306 hospitals in 28 countries participating in the SCCM Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID-19 registry. PATIENTS: Previously independently living adult ICU survivors of COVID-19. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was nonhome discharge. Secondary outcome was the requirement of health assistance among patients who were discharged home. Out of 10 820 patients, 7101 (66%) were discharged alive; 3791 (53%) of these survivors lost their previous independent living status, out of those 2071 (29%) through nonhome discharge, and 1720 (24%) through discharge home requiring health assistance. In adjusted analyses, loss of independence on discharge among survivors was predicted by patient age ≥ 65 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.47-3.14, P < .0001), former and current smoking status (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.46, P = .003 and 1.60 (95% CI 1.18-2.16), P = .003, respectively), substance use disorder (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.12-2.06, P = .007), requirement for mechanical ventilation (aOR 4.17, 95% CI 3.69-4.71, P < .0001), prone positioning (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.38, P = .02), and requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.55-3.34, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of ICU survivors hospitalized for COVID-19 are unable to return to independent living status, thereby imposing a significant secondary strain on health care systems worldwide.

Determinants of Professional Fulfillment and Burnout Among Intensivists: A National Survey by the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists in 2022.

BACKGROUND: Increased burnout and decreased professional fulfillment among intensive care physicians is partly due to intensive care unit (ICU) workload. Although the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic increased ICU workload, it also may have increased feelings of personal fulfillment due to positive public perceptions of physicians caring for COVID patients. We surveyed critical care anesthesiologists to identify the effect of provider demographics, ICU workload, and COVID-19-related workload, on professional fulfillment and burnout. METHODS: We performed an exploratory survey of 606 members of the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA) in January and February 2022. We used the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI) to grade levels of professional fulfillment and markers of burnout (ie, work exhaustion and disengagement). Univariable and multivariable models were used to identify associations between provider demographics and practice characteristics and professional fulfillment and work exhaustion. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-five intensivists (29%) responded. A total of 65% were male and 49% were between 36 and 45 years old. The overall median PFI score-0 (none) to 24 (most professional fulfillment)-was 17 (IQR, 1-24), with a wide distribution of responses. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with higher professional fulfillment included age >45 years ( P =.004), ≤15 weeks full-time ICU coverage in 2020 ( P =.02), role as medical director ( P =.01), and nighttime home call with supervision of in-house ICU fellows ( P =.01). CONCLUSIONS: Professional fulfillment and work exhaustion in this cross-sectional survey were associated with several demographic and practice characteristics but not COVID-19-related workload, suggesting that COVID-19 workload may not have either positive or negative perceptions on professional fulfillment.

Understanding the Intricacies of Delivering Compassionate Care in the Intensive Care Unit and What Hinders It: A Qualitative Study of Members of 2 Critical Care Societies.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care is increasing in importance especially in the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic era. We sought to understand factors affecting compassionate care faced by intensivists in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Using survey methodology incorporating 3 real-life case vignettes, responses were elicited to difficult ethical and moral dilemmas in the ICU setting. Members of 2 critical care societies in the United States and Europe were included in the survey. RESULTS: Responses from 323 intensivists (32% out of 1000 members who opened the initial email invitation) around the world were analyzed thematically. Conflicts between patient choices and suggested medical care, institutional/work constraints restricting compassionate care and leading to burnout, and personal variables influencing compassionate care were the themes that emerged from our investigation. The results demonstrate that intensivists have compassion for their patients and want to provide patient-centered care, but also experience stress due to their limited ability to improve their patients' conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Compassionate attitudes can be hindered by an underlying worry about the decision made by the patient and their family, a lack of confidence in making hard moral decisions, and the burdens of burnout.

Well-being in the intensive care unit: Looking Beyond COVID-19

Synopsis Burnout among critical care personnel has increased due to the additional psychological and physical demands of caring for critically ill patients with limited resources. Factors that increase the risk of burnout include compassion fatigue, lack of control over the work environment, difficult interpersonal relationships, and constant exposure to end-of-life issues. Organizational commitment to physician wellbeing depends on improving workplace efficiency, recognizing stressors at in the critical care environment and providing resources to help manage staffing shortages. Community building, training in communication, and team-building strategies are important steps in building collaboration and camaraderie in the workplace.

DISCHARGE OUTCOMES OF PATIENTS WITH COVID-19 ADMITTED TO THE ICU: THE VIRUS REGISTRY

B Conclusion: b Deep sedation adversely affected discharge outcomes of Coronavirus disease 2019 patients who were admitted to the ICU. B Introduction: b To describe the discharge outcomes of patients admitted to the ICU in a multicentre, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Association of Sedation, Coma, and In-Hospital Mortality in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, sedatives and opioids are commonly administered which may lead to increased vulnerability to neurologic dysfunction. We tested the hypothesis that patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome are at higher risk of in-hospital mortality due to prolonged coma compared with other patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome matched for disease severity. DESIGN: Propensity-matched cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in an academic hospital network, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Boston, MA). PATIENTS: All mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 patients between March and May 2020 were identified and matched with patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome of other etiology. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using clinical data obtained from a hospital registry, we matched 114 coronavirus disease 2019 patients to 228 noncoronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress syndrome patients based on baseline disease severity. Coma was identified using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale less than or equal to -3. Multivariable logistic regression and mediation analyses were used to assess the percentage of comatose days, sedative medications used, and the association between coronavirus disease 2019 and in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality (48.3% vs 31.6%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.34-3.44; p = 0.002), the percentage of comatose days (66.0% ± 31.3% vs 36.0% ± 36.9%, adjusted difference, 29.35; 95% CI, 21.45-37.24; p < 0.001), and the hypnotic agent dose (51.3% vs 17.1% of maximum hypnotic agent dose given in the cohort; p < 0.001) were higher among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Brain imaging did not show a higher frequency of structural brain lesions in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (6.1% vs 7.0%; p = 0.76). Hypnotic agent dose was associated with coma (adjusted coefficient, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.78; p < 0.001) and mediated (p = 0.001) coma. Coma was associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 5.84; 95% CI, 3.58-9.58; p < 0.001) and mediated 59% of in-hospital mortality (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with matched patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome of other etiology, patients with coronavirus disease 2019 received higher doses of hypnotics, which was associated with prolonged coma and higher mortality.

COVID-Activated Emergency Scaling of Anesthesiology Responsibilities Intensive Care Unit.

In response to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the potential need for physicians to provide critical care services, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has collaborated with the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF) to develop the COVID-Activated Emergency Scaling of Anesthesiology Responsibilities (CAESAR) Intensive Care Unit (ICU) workgroup. CAESAR-ICU is designed and written for the practicing general anesthesiologist and should serve as a primer to enable an anesthesiologist to provide limited bedside critical care services.

COVID-Activated Emergency Scaling of Anesthesiology Responsibilities Intensive Care Unit

In response to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the potential need for physicians to provide critical care services, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has collaborated with the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF) to develop the COVID-Activated Emergency Scaling of Anesthesiology Responsibilities (CAESAR) Intensive Care Unit (ICU) workgroup. CAESAR-ICU is designed and written for the practicing general anesthesiologist and should serve as a primer to enable an anesthesiologist to provide limited bedside critical care services.