Staffing in ICUs: Physicians and alternative staffing models

Allan Garland, Hayley B. Gershengorn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The evidence regarding physician staffing of ICUs does not yet provide a consistent view of the best model to use. Most studies have significant limitations, and this subject is complicated by the fact that optimal ICU staffing may depend on ICU characteristics. The topic with the most data regarding patient outcomes is the intensity of intensivist involvement in care, particularly the value of closed- vs open-model ICUs; however, the evidence is inconsistent here as well. Even if closed-model ICUs produce better outcomes, we do not know which specific elements of that multifaceted organizational paradigm are responsible for improvement. Also, studies of around-the-clock intensivist presence have not consistently shown that it is associated with superior outcomes. Increasingly, nonphysician providers are playing innovative roles in the ICU, and care provided by teams including nurse practitioners or physician assistants appears to be safe and comparable to that provided by other staffing models. Although we do not know the best way to staff ICUs, the conditions of ICU physician coverage will continue to change under the stresses of shortages of intensivists and increasing duty hour limitations for trainees. Nonphysician providers, innovative physician staffing models, telemedicine, and other technologies will be increasingly used to cope with these realities. This evolution makes it more important than ever to study how staffing affects outcomes. Only quantitative evaluation can tell us whether one staffing model is better than another. Accordingly, we need more research from multiple sites to develop a consistent and integrated understanding of this complex topic.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)214-221
Number of pages8
JournalChest
Volume143
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2013

Fingerprint

Physicians
Physician Assistants
Nurse Practitioners
Telemedicine
Technology
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Staffing in ICUs : Physicians and alternative staffing models. / Garland, Allan; Gershengorn, Hayley B.

In: Chest, Vol. 143, No. 1, 01.2013, p. 214-221.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Garland, A & Gershengorn, HB 2013, 'Staffing in ICUs: Physicians and alternative staffing models', Chest, vol. 143, no. 1, pp. 214-221. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.12-1531
Garland, Allan ; Gershengorn, Hayley B. / Staffing in ICUs : Physicians and alternative staffing models. In: Chest. 2013 ; Vol. 143, No. 1. pp. 214-221.
@article{0a71fab73636499b8e6487775ad63e11,
title = "Staffing in ICUs: Physicians and alternative staffing models",
abstract = "The evidence regarding physician staffing of ICUs does not yet provide a consistent view of the best model to use. Most studies have significant limitations, and this subject is complicated by the fact that optimal ICU staffing may depend on ICU characteristics. The topic with the most data regarding patient outcomes is the intensity of intensivist involvement in care, particularly the value of closed- vs open-model ICUs; however, the evidence is inconsistent here as well. Even if closed-model ICUs produce better outcomes, we do not know which specific elements of that multifaceted organizational paradigm are responsible for improvement. Also, studies of around-the-clock intensivist presence have not consistently shown that it is associated with superior outcomes. Increasingly, nonphysician providers are playing innovative roles in the ICU, and care provided by teams including nurse practitioners or physician assistants appears to be safe and comparable to that provided by other staffing models. Although we do not know the best way to staff ICUs, the conditions of ICU physician coverage will continue to change under the stresses of shortages of intensivists and increasing duty hour limitations for trainees. Nonphysician providers, innovative physician staffing models, telemedicine, and other technologies will be increasingly used to cope with these realities. This evolution makes it more important than ever to study how staffing affects outcomes. Only quantitative evaluation can tell us whether one staffing model is better than another. Accordingly, we need more research from multiple sites to develop a consistent and integrated understanding of this complex topic.",
author = "Allan Garland and Gershengorn, {Hayley B.}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1378/chest.12-1531",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "143",
pages = "214--221",
journal = "Chest",
issn = "0012-3692",
publisher = "American College of Chest Physicians",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Staffing in ICUs

T2 - Physicians and alternative staffing models

AU - Garland, Allan

AU - Gershengorn, Hayley B.

PY - 2013/1

Y1 - 2013/1

N2 - The evidence regarding physician staffing of ICUs does not yet provide a consistent view of the best model to use. Most studies have significant limitations, and this subject is complicated by the fact that optimal ICU staffing may depend on ICU characteristics. The topic with the most data regarding patient outcomes is the intensity of intensivist involvement in care, particularly the value of closed- vs open-model ICUs; however, the evidence is inconsistent here as well. Even if closed-model ICUs produce better outcomes, we do not know which specific elements of that multifaceted organizational paradigm are responsible for improvement. Also, studies of around-the-clock intensivist presence have not consistently shown that it is associated with superior outcomes. Increasingly, nonphysician providers are playing innovative roles in the ICU, and care provided by teams including nurse practitioners or physician assistants appears to be safe and comparable to that provided by other staffing models. Although we do not know the best way to staff ICUs, the conditions of ICU physician coverage will continue to change under the stresses of shortages of intensivists and increasing duty hour limitations for trainees. Nonphysician providers, innovative physician staffing models, telemedicine, and other technologies will be increasingly used to cope with these realities. This evolution makes it more important than ever to study how staffing affects outcomes. Only quantitative evaluation can tell us whether one staffing model is better than another. Accordingly, we need more research from multiple sites to develop a consistent and integrated understanding of this complex topic.

AB - The evidence regarding physician staffing of ICUs does not yet provide a consistent view of the best model to use. Most studies have significant limitations, and this subject is complicated by the fact that optimal ICU staffing may depend on ICU characteristics. The topic with the most data regarding patient outcomes is the intensity of intensivist involvement in care, particularly the value of closed- vs open-model ICUs; however, the evidence is inconsistent here as well. Even if closed-model ICUs produce better outcomes, we do not know which specific elements of that multifaceted organizational paradigm are responsible for improvement. Also, studies of around-the-clock intensivist presence have not consistently shown that it is associated with superior outcomes. Increasingly, nonphysician providers are playing innovative roles in the ICU, and care provided by teams including nurse practitioners or physician assistants appears to be safe and comparable to that provided by other staffing models. Although we do not know the best way to staff ICUs, the conditions of ICU physician coverage will continue to change under the stresses of shortages of intensivists and increasing duty hour limitations for trainees. Nonphysician providers, innovative physician staffing models, telemedicine, and other technologies will be increasingly used to cope with these realities. This evolution makes it more important than ever to study how staffing affects outcomes. Only quantitative evaluation can tell us whether one staffing model is better than another. Accordingly, we need more research from multiple sites to develop a consistent and integrated understanding of this complex topic.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871977936&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871977936&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1378/chest.12-1531

DO - 10.1378/chest.12-1531

M3 - Article

C2 - 23276844

AN - SCOPUS:84871977936

VL - 143

SP - 214

EP - 221

JO - Chest

JF - Chest

SN - 0012-3692

IS - 1

ER -