Critical care organizations in academic medical centers in North America

A descriptive report

Stephen M. Pastores, Neil A. Halpern, John M. Oropello, Natalie Kostelecky, Vladimir Kvetan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: With the exception of a few single-center descriptive reports, data on critical care organizations are relatively sparse. The objectives of our study were to determine the structure, governance, and experience to date of established critical care organizations in North American academic medical centers. Design: A 46-item survey questionnaire was electronically distributed using Survey Monkey to the leadership of 27 identified critical care organizations in the United States and Canada between September 2014 and February 2015. A critical care organization had to be headed by a physician and have primary governance over the majority, if not all, of the ICUs in the medical center. Measurements and Main Results: We received 24 responses (89%). The majority of the critical care organizations (83%) were called departments, centers, systems, or operations committees. Approximately two thirds of respondents were from larger (> 500 beds) urban institutions, and nearly 80% were primary university medical centers. On average, there were six ICUs per academic medical center with a mean of four ICUs under critical care organization governance. In these ICUs, intensivists were present in-house 24/7 in 49%; advanced practice providers in 63%; hospitalists in 21%; and telemedicine coverage in 14%. Nearly 60% of respondents indicated that they had a separate hospital budget to support data management and reporting, oversight of their ICUs, and rapid response teams. The transition from the traditional model of ICUs within departmentally controlled services or divisions to a critical care organization was described as gradual in 50% and complete in only 25%. Nearly 90% indicated that their critical care organization governance structure was either moderately or highly effective; a similar number suggested that their critical care organizations were evolving with increasing domain and financial control of the ICUs at their respective institutions. Conclusions: Our survey of the very few critical care organizations in North American academic medical centers showed that the governance models of critical care organizations vary and continue to evolve. Additional studies are warranted to improve our understanding of the factors that can foster the growth of critical care organizations and how they can be effective.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2239-2244
Number of pages6
JournalCritical Care Medicine
Volume43
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2015

Fingerprint

Critical Care
North America
Organizations
Hospitalists
Telemedicine
Budgets
Canada
Haplorhini
Research Design
Surveys and Questionnaires
Physicians

Keywords

  • Administration
  • Critical care
  • Governance
  • Intensive care unit
  • Organization
  • Staffing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Critical care organizations in academic medical centers in North America : A descriptive report. / Pastores, Stephen M.; Halpern, Neil A.; Oropello, John M.; Kostelecky, Natalie; Kvetan, Vladimir.

In: Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 10, 01.10.2015, p. 2239-2244.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pastores, Stephen M. ; Halpern, Neil A. ; Oropello, John M. ; Kostelecky, Natalie ; Kvetan, Vladimir. / Critical care organizations in academic medical centers in North America : A descriptive report. In: Critical Care Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 43, No. 10. pp. 2239-2244.
@article{a6590f6edd514a6caaac277b4d492734,
title = "Critical care organizations in academic medical centers in North America: A descriptive report",
abstract = "Objectives: With the exception of a few single-center descriptive reports, data on critical care organizations are relatively sparse. The objectives of our study were to determine the structure, governance, and experience to date of established critical care organizations in North American academic medical centers. Design: A 46-item survey questionnaire was electronically distributed using Survey Monkey to the leadership of 27 identified critical care organizations in the United States and Canada between September 2014 and February 2015. A critical care organization had to be headed by a physician and have primary governance over the majority, if not all, of the ICUs in the medical center. Measurements and Main Results: We received 24 responses (89{\%}). The majority of the critical care organizations (83{\%}) were called departments, centers, systems, or operations committees. Approximately two thirds of respondents were from larger (> 500 beds) urban institutions, and nearly 80{\%} were primary university medical centers. On average, there were six ICUs per academic medical center with a mean of four ICUs under critical care organization governance. In these ICUs, intensivists were present in-house 24/7 in 49{\%}; advanced practice providers in 63{\%}; hospitalists in 21{\%}; and telemedicine coverage in 14{\%}. Nearly 60{\%} of respondents indicated that they had a separate hospital budget to support data management and reporting, oversight of their ICUs, and rapid response teams. The transition from the traditional model of ICUs within departmentally controlled services or divisions to a critical care organization was described as gradual in 50{\%} and complete in only 25{\%}. Nearly 90{\%} indicated that their critical care organization governance structure was either moderately or highly effective; a similar number suggested that their critical care organizations were evolving with increasing domain and financial control of the ICUs at their respective institutions. Conclusions: Our survey of the very few critical care organizations in North American academic medical centers showed that the governance models of critical care organizations vary and continue to evolve. Additional studies are warranted to improve our understanding of the factors that can foster the growth of critical care organizations and how they can be effective.",
keywords = "Administration, Critical care, Governance, Intensive care unit, Organization, Staffing",
author = "Pastores, {Stephen M.} and Halpern, {Neil A.} and Oropello, {John M.} and Natalie Kostelecky and Vladimir Kvetan",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/CCM.0000000000001200",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "2239--2244",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Critical care organizations in academic medical centers in North America

T2 - A descriptive report

AU - Pastores, Stephen M.

AU - Halpern, Neil A.

AU - Oropello, John M.

AU - Kostelecky, Natalie

AU - Kvetan, Vladimir

PY - 2015/10/1

Y1 - 2015/10/1

N2 - Objectives: With the exception of a few single-center descriptive reports, data on critical care organizations are relatively sparse. The objectives of our study were to determine the structure, governance, and experience to date of established critical care organizations in North American academic medical centers. Design: A 46-item survey questionnaire was electronically distributed using Survey Monkey to the leadership of 27 identified critical care organizations in the United States and Canada between September 2014 and February 2015. A critical care organization had to be headed by a physician and have primary governance over the majority, if not all, of the ICUs in the medical center. Measurements and Main Results: We received 24 responses (89%). The majority of the critical care organizations (83%) were called departments, centers, systems, or operations committees. Approximately two thirds of respondents were from larger (> 500 beds) urban institutions, and nearly 80% were primary university medical centers. On average, there were six ICUs per academic medical center with a mean of four ICUs under critical care organization governance. In these ICUs, intensivists were present in-house 24/7 in 49%; advanced practice providers in 63%; hospitalists in 21%; and telemedicine coverage in 14%. Nearly 60% of respondents indicated that they had a separate hospital budget to support data management and reporting, oversight of their ICUs, and rapid response teams. The transition from the traditional model of ICUs within departmentally controlled services or divisions to a critical care organization was described as gradual in 50% and complete in only 25%. Nearly 90% indicated that their critical care organization governance structure was either moderately or highly effective; a similar number suggested that their critical care organizations were evolving with increasing domain and financial control of the ICUs at their respective institutions. Conclusions: Our survey of the very few critical care organizations in North American academic medical centers showed that the governance models of critical care organizations vary and continue to evolve. Additional studies are warranted to improve our understanding of the factors that can foster the growth of critical care organizations and how they can be effective.

AB - Objectives: With the exception of a few single-center descriptive reports, data on critical care organizations are relatively sparse. The objectives of our study were to determine the structure, governance, and experience to date of established critical care organizations in North American academic medical centers. Design: A 46-item survey questionnaire was electronically distributed using Survey Monkey to the leadership of 27 identified critical care organizations in the United States and Canada between September 2014 and February 2015. A critical care organization had to be headed by a physician and have primary governance over the majority, if not all, of the ICUs in the medical center. Measurements and Main Results: We received 24 responses (89%). The majority of the critical care organizations (83%) were called departments, centers, systems, or operations committees. Approximately two thirds of respondents were from larger (> 500 beds) urban institutions, and nearly 80% were primary university medical centers. On average, there were six ICUs per academic medical center with a mean of four ICUs under critical care organization governance. In these ICUs, intensivists were present in-house 24/7 in 49%; advanced practice providers in 63%; hospitalists in 21%; and telemedicine coverage in 14%. Nearly 60% of respondents indicated that they had a separate hospital budget to support data management and reporting, oversight of their ICUs, and rapid response teams. The transition from the traditional model of ICUs within departmentally controlled services or divisions to a critical care organization was described as gradual in 50% and complete in only 25%. Nearly 90% indicated that their critical care organization governance structure was either moderately or highly effective; a similar number suggested that their critical care organizations were evolving with increasing domain and financial control of the ICUs at their respective institutions. Conclusions: Our survey of the very few critical care organizations in North American academic medical centers showed that the governance models of critical care organizations vary and continue to evolve. Additional studies are warranted to improve our understanding of the factors that can foster the growth of critical care organizations and how they can be effective.

KW - Administration

KW - Critical care

KW - Governance

KW - Intensive care unit

KW - Organization

KW - Staffing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941904876&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84941904876&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001200

DO - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001200

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 2239

EP - 2244

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 10

ER -