Rhode Island Hospital Brown/Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2013 Feb;41(2):638-45. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182741478.
Increases in the number, size, and occupancy rates of ICUs have not been accompanied by a commensurate growth in the number of critical care physicians leading to a workforce shortage. Due to concern that understaffing may exist, the Society of Critical Care Medicine created a taskforce to generate guidelines on maximum intensivists/patient ratios.
A multidisciplinary taskforce conducted a review of published literature on intensivist staffing and related topics, a survey of pulmonary/Critical Care physicians, and held an expert roundtable conference.
A statement was generated and revised by the taskforce members using an iterative consensus process and submitted for review to the leadership council of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. For the purposes of this statement, the taskforce limited its recommendations to ICUs that use a "closed" model where the intensivists control triage and patient care.
The taskforce concluded that while advocating a specific maximum number of patients cared for is unrealistic, an approach that uses the following principles is essential: 1) proper staffing impacts patient care; 2) large caseloads should not preclude rounding in a timely fashion; 3) staffing decisions should factor surge capacity and nondirect patient care activities; 4) institutions should regularly reassess their staffing; 5) high staff turnover or decreases in quality-of-care indicators in an ICU may be markers of overload; 6) telemedicine, advanced practice professionals, or nonintensivist medical staff may be useful to alleviate overburdening the intensivist, but should be evaluated using rigorous methods; 7) in teaching institutions, feedback from faculty and trainees should be sought to understand the implications of potential understaffing on medical education; and 8) in academic medical ICUs, there is evidence that intensivist/patient ratios less favorable than 1:14 negatively impact education, staff well-being, and patient care.
随着 ICU 数量、规模和入住率的增加,重症监护医师的数量并没有相应增加,导致劳动力短缺。由于担心可能存在人手不足的情况,重症医学会成立了一个工作组,制定关于重症监护医师与患者比例的指南。
一个多学科工作组对重症监护医师配置和相关主题的已发表文献进行了审查,对肺科/重症监护医师进行了调查,并举行了专家圆桌会议。
工作组的成员使用迭代共识过程生成并修订了一份声明,并将其提交给重症医学会的领导层进行审查。为了本声明的目的,工作组将其建议仅限于使用“封闭式”模式的 ICU,在这种模式下,重症监护医师控制分诊和患者护理。
工作组得出结论,虽然提倡具体的最大患者护理人数是不现实的,但采用以下原则的方法是必不可少的:1)适当的人员配备会影响患者护理;2)大量的工作量不应妨碍及时查房;3)人员配置决策应考虑到应急能力和非直接患者护理活动;4)机构应定期重新评估其人员配备;5)重症监护病房的高员工流动率或护理质量指标下降可能是过载的标志;6)远程医疗、高级实践专业人员或非重症监护医师的医务人员可能有助于减轻重症监护医师的负担,但应使用严格的方法进行评估;7)在教学机构,应征求教师和学员的反馈意见,以了解潜在人员不足对医学教育的影响;8)在学术医疗 ICU 中,有证据表明,重症监护医师与患者比例低于 1:14 会对教育、员工福祉和患者护理产生负面影响。