美国重症监护病房的跨专业团队人员配备。

Allan Garland, Deena Costa, Hannah Wunsch, Amy L Dzierba, Danny Lizano, Hayley Gershengorn
{"title":"美国重症监护病房的跨专业团队人员配备。","authors":"Allan Garland, Deena Costa, Hannah Wunsch, Amy L Dzierba, Danny Lizano, Hayley Gershengorn","doi":"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202404-441OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>There is a paucity of data, and no consensus, about the composition of interdisciplinary teams of healthcare worker (HCW) that provide care in intensive care units (ICU).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Delineate the nature and variation of HCW staff composition in US adult ICUs before the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A national survey of 574 adult ICUs inquired about ICU staffing. Two sets of survey items asked about: (a) \"availability to provide care\" in ICU for 11 HCW types, collapsed into six groupings, and (b) presence in formal ICU clinical rounds of nine HCW types, collapsed into six groupings; bedside nurses were assumed to be involved in both categories. Analysis was descriptive, seeking to examine the predominant and full range of staffing patterns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of surveyed ICUs: 94% were in metropolitan areas, 63% in teaching hospitals, 74% had >250 beds, 66% cared for mixed adult patient types (e.g. medical-surgical), median ICU bed count was 20 (interquartile range 12-25), 27% used some form of telemedicine. In addition to bedside nurses, the core staffing group comprised intensivists, respiratory therapists and pharmacists; in 88% of ICUs all were available to provide care. However, there were 28 different combinations of the six groupings (intensivists, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, attending physician support, advanced bedside nurse support, nurse aides), with the most common one, present in 38% of ICUs, including all six. 96% of ICUs had interprofessional rounds at least five days a week; 78% had them on weekends. Among the ICUs with rounds, 61% of weekday rounding teams included all of intensivists, respiratory therapists and pharmacists. Nutrition, rehabilitation and social support practitioners each participated in rounds in 35-80% of ICUs, and altogether in 28% of ICUs. Except for intensivists, all HCW types participated much less commonly in weekend than in weekday rounds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ICU care almost always included a core team of bedside nurses, intensivists, respiratory therapists, and pharmacists. Beyond that core, great variability was seen in the presence of many other HCW types. Almost all ICUs had interprofessional rounds, with three-quarters also having them on weekends.</p>","PeriodicalId":93876,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interprofessional Team Staffing in U.S. Intensive Care Units.\",\"authors\":\"Allan Garland, Deena Costa, Hannah Wunsch, Amy L Dzierba, Danny Lizano, Hayley Gershengorn\",\"doi\":\"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202404-441OC\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>There is a paucity of data, and no consensus, about the composition of interdisciplinary teams of healthcare worker (HCW) that provide care in intensive care units (ICU).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Delineate the nature and variation of HCW staff composition in US adult ICUs before the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A national survey of 574 adult ICUs inquired about ICU staffing. Two sets of survey items asked about: (a) \\\"availability to provide care\\\" in ICU for 11 HCW types, collapsed into six groupings, and (b) presence in formal ICU clinical rounds of nine HCW types, collapsed into six groupings; bedside nurses were assumed to be involved in both categories. Analysis was descriptive, seeking to examine the predominant and full range of staffing patterns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of surveyed ICUs: 94% were in metropolitan areas, 63% in teaching hospitals, 74% had >250 beds, 66% cared for mixed adult patient types (e.g. medical-surgical), median ICU bed count was 20 (interquartile range 12-25), 27% used some form of telemedicine. In addition to bedside nurses, the core staffing group comprised intensivists, respiratory therapists and pharmacists; in 88% of ICUs all were available to provide care. However, there were 28 different combinations of the six groupings (intensivists, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, attending physician support, advanced bedside nurse support, nurse aides), with the most common one, present in 38% of ICUs, including all six. 96% of ICUs had interprofessional rounds at least five days a week; 78% had them on weekends. Among the ICUs with rounds, 61% of weekday rounding teams included all of intensivists, respiratory therapists and pharmacists. Nutrition, rehabilitation and social support practitioners each participated in rounds in 35-80% of ICUs, and altogether in 28% of ICUs. Except for intensivists, all HCW types participated much less commonly in weekend than in weekday rounds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ICU care almost always included a core team of bedside nurses, intensivists, respiratory therapists, and pharmacists. Beyond that core, great variability was seen in the presence of many other HCW types. Almost all ICUs had interprofessional rounds, with three-quarters also having them on weekends.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93876,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of the American Thoracic Society\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of the American Thoracic Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202404-441OC\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202404-441OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理由:关于在重症监护病房(ICU)提供护理服务的医护人员(HCW)跨学科团队的组成,目前还缺乏数据,也没有达成共识:目的:在 COVID-19 大流行之前,确定美国成人重症监护病房医护人员组成的性质和差异:方法:对 574 家成人重症监护病房进行全国性调查,询问重症监护病房的人员配备情况。两组调查项目分别询问:(a) 11 种医护人员在重症监护病房 "提供护理 "的情况,分为六组;(b) 9 种医护人员在重症监护病房正式临床查房的情况,分为六组;假定床旁护士参与了这两类查房。分析是描述性的,旨在研究人员配置模式的主要和全面情况:在接受调查的重症监护室中94%的重症监护室位于大都市地区,63%位于教学医院,74%的重症监护室拥有超过250张床位,66%的重症监护室负责护理混合型成人患者(如内外科),重症监护室床位数中位数为20张(四分位数间距为12-25),27%的重症监护室使用某种形式的远程医疗。除床边护士外,核心人员配置还包括重症监护医师、呼吸治疗师和药剂师;88%的重症监护病房都配备了这些人员。然而,六种人员组合(重症监护医师、呼吸治疗师、药剂师、主治医师支持、高级床旁护士支持、护士助理)有 28 种不同的组合,其中最常见的组合在 38% 的重症监护病房中出现,包括所有六种人员组合。96%的重症监护病房每周至少有五天进行跨专业查房;78%的重症监护病房在周末进行查房。在有查房的重症监护室中,61%的工作日查房小组包括所有的重症监护医生、呼吸治疗师和药剂师。在 35%-80% 的重症监护病房中,营养、康复和社会支持医师都参加了查房,而在 28% 的重症监护病房中,营养、康复和社会支持医师总共参加了查房。除重症监护医师外,所有类型的医护人员参加周末查房的比例都远远低于工作日:结论:重症监护室的护理工作几乎都包括由床边护士、重症监护医师、呼吸治疗师和药剂师组成的核心团队。除这一核心团队外,许多其他类型的医护人员的参与情况也存在很大差异。几乎所有重症监护病房都进行了跨专业查房,其中四分之三的病房在周末也进行了跨专业查房。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interprofessional Team Staffing in U.S. Intensive Care Units.

Rationale: There is a paucity of data, and no consensus, about the composition of interdisciplinary teams of healthcare worker (HCW) that provide care in intensive care units (ICU).

Objective: Delineate the nature and variation of HCW staff composition in US adult ICUs before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: A national survey of 574 adult ICUs inquired about ICU staffing. Two sets of survey items asked about: (a) "availability to provide care" in ICU for 11 HCW types, collapsed into six groupings, and (b) presence in formal ICU clinical rounds of nine HCW types, collapsed into six groupings; bedside nurses were assumed to be involved in both categories. Analysis was descriptive, seeking to examine the predominant and full range of staffing patterns.

Results: Of surveyed ICUs: 94% were in metropolitan areas, 63% in teaching hospitals, 74% had >250 beds, 66% cared for mixed adult patient types (e.g. medical-surgical), median ICU bed count was 20 (interquartile range 12-25), 27% used some form of telemedicine. In addition to bedside nurses, the core staffing group comprised intensivists, respiratory therapists and pharmacists; in 88% of ICUs all were available to provide care. However, there were 28 different combinations of the six groupings (intensivists, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, attending physician support, advanced bedside nurse support, nurse aides), with the most common one, present in 38% of ICUs, including all six. 96% of ICUs had interprofessional rounds at least five days a week; 78% had them on weekends. Among the ICUs with rounds, 61% of weekday rounding teams included all of intensivists, respiratory therapists and pharmacists. Nutrition, rehabilitation and social support practitioners each participated in rounds in 35-80% of ICUs, and altogether in 28% of ICUs. Except for intensivists, all HCW types participated much less commonly in weekend than in weekday rounds.

Conclusions: ICU care almost always included a core team of bedside nurses, intensivists, respiratory therapists, and pharmacists. Beyond that core, great variability was seen in the presence of many other HCW types. Almost all ICUs had interprofessional rounds, with three-quarters also having them on weekends.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信