Training Emergency Physicians to Meet the Critical Care Needs in the United States

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (10) ◽  
pp. e677-e678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian T. Wessman ◽  
Brian M. Fuller
PEDIATRICS ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 79 (5) ◽  
pp. 836-837
Author(s):  
GERALD KATZMAN

To the Editor.— There have been several attempts to define the person-power needs for neonatologists in the United States.1-3 The reports by Merenstein et al2 and the AAP Committee on Fetus and Newborn1 maintain that there is presently an adequate number of neonatologists, whereas in a 1981 editorial, Robertson3 predicted increasing shortages of neonatologists. Why the difference between the conclusions? My answer to this question is that the reports by Merenstein et al and the AAP used calculated ratios of neonatologists to live births or lengths of stay, whereas the Robertson editorial expressed concern about the critical care needs of the physiologically unstable neonate.


2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Leung ◽  
Stephen M. Pastores ◽  
John M. Oropello ◽  
Craig M. Lilly ◽  
Samuel M. Galvagno ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 115 (6) ◽  
pp. 1349-1362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee P. Skrupky ◽  
Paul W. Kerby ◽  
Richard S. Hotchkiss

Anesthesiologists are increasingly confronting the difficult problem of caring for patients with sepsis in the operating room and in the intensive care unit. Sepsis occurs in more than 750,000 patients in the United States annually and is responsible for more than 210,000 deaths. Approximately 40% of all intensive care unit patients have sepsis on admission to the intensive care unit or experience sepsis during their stay in the intensive care unit. There have been significant advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of the disorder and its treatment. Although deaths attributable to sepsis remain stubbornly high, new treatment algorithms have led to a reduction in overall mortality. Thus, it is important for anesthesiologists and critical care practitioners to be aware of these new therapeutic regimens. The goal of this review is to include practical points on important advances in the treatment of sepsis and provide a vision of future immunotherapeutic approaches.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa E. Gildner ◽  
Zaneta M. Thayer

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted maternity care decisions, including plans to change providers or delivery location due to pandemic-related restrictions and fears. A relatively unexplored question, however, is how the pandemic may shape future maternity care preferences post-pandemic. Here, we use data collected from an online convenience survey of 980 women living in the United States to evaluate how and why the pandemic has affected women’s future care preferences. We hypothesize that while the majority of women will express a continued interest in hospital birth and OB/GYN care due to perceived safety of medicalized birth, a subset of women will express a new interest in out-of-hospital or “community” care in future pregnancies. However, factors such as local provider and facility availability, insurance coverage, and out-of-pocket cost could limit access to such future preferred care options. Among our predominately white, educated, and high-income sample, a total of 58 participants (5.9% of the sample) reported a novel preference for community care during future pregnancies. While the pandemic prompted the exploration of non-hospital options, the reasons women preferred community care were mostly consistent with factors described in pre-pandemic studies, (e.g. a preference for a natural birth model and a desire for more person-centered care). However, a relatively high percentage (34.5%) of participants with novel preference for community care indicated that they expected limitations in their ability to access these services. These findings highlight how the pandemic has potentially influenced maternity care preferences, with implications for how providers and policy makers should anticipate and respond to future care needs.


2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Young ◽  
Humayun J. Chaudhry ◽  
Xiaomei Pei ◽  
Katie Arnhart ◽  
Michael Dugan ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT There are 985,026 physicians with Doctor of Medicine (MD) and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) degrees licensed to practice medicine in the United States and the District of Columbia, according to physician census data compiled by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB). These qualified physicians graduated from 2,089 medical schools in 167 countries and are available to serve a U.S. national population of 327,167,434. While the percentage of physicians who are international medical graduates have remained relatively stable over the last eight years, the percentage of physicians who are women, possess a DO degree, have three or more licenses, or are graduates of a medical school in the Caribbean have increased by varying degrees during that same period. This report marks the fifth biennial physician census that the FSMB has published, highlighting key characteristics of the nation's available physician workforce, including numbers of licensees by geographic region and state, type of medical degree, location of medical school, age, gender, specialty certification and number of active licenses per physician. The number of licensed physicians in the United States has been growing steadily, due in part to an expansion in the number of medical schools and students during the past two decades, even as concerns of a physician shortage to meet health care demands persist. The average age of licensed physicians continues to increase, and more licensed physicians appear to be specialty certified, though the latter finding may reflect more comprehensive reporting. This census was compiled using the FSMB's Physician Data Center (PDC), which collects, collates and analyzes physician data directly from the nation's state medical and osteopathic boards and is uniquely positioned to provide a comprehensive snapshot of information about licensed physicians. A periodic national census of this type offers useful demographic and licensure information about the available physician workforce that may be useful to policy makers, researchers and related health care organizations to better understand and address the nation's health care needs.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Robin V. Horak ◽  
Shasha Bai ◽  
Bradley S. Marino ◽  
David K. Werho ◽  
Leslie A. Rhodes ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective: To assess current demographics and duties of physicians as well as the structure of paediatric cardiac critical care in the United States. Design: REDCap surveys were sent by email from May till August 2019 to medical directors (“directors”) of critical care units at the 120 United States centres submitting data to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database and to associated faculty from centres that provided email lists. Faculty and directors were asked about personal attributes and clinical duties. Directors were additionally asked about unit structure. Measurements and main results: Responses were received from 66% (79/120) of directors and 62% (294/477) of contacted faculty. Seventy-six percent of directors and 54% of faculty were male, however, faculty <40 years old were predominantly women. The majority of both groups were white. Median bed count (n = 20) was similar in ICUs and multi-disciplinary paediatric ICUs. The median service expectation for one clinical full-time equivalent was 14 weeks of clinical service (interquartile range 12, 16), with the majority of programmes (86%) providing in-house attending night coverage. Work hours were high during service and non-service weeks with both directors (37%) and faculty (45%). Conclusions: Racial and ethnic diversity is markedly deficient in the paediatric cardiac critical care workforce. Although the majority of faculty are male, females make up the majority of the workforce younger than 40 years old. Work hours across all age groups and unit types are high both on- and off-service, with most units providing attending in-house night coverage.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark T. Keegan

Critical care consumes about 4% of national health expenditure and 0.65% of United States gross domestic product. There are approximately 94,000 critical care beds in the United States, and provision of critical care services costs approximately $80 billion per year. The enormous costs and the heterogeneity of critical care have led to scrutiny of patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness by a variety of governmental and nongovernmental organizations; furthermore, individual critical care practitioners and their hospitals should evaluate the care delivered. This review discusses scoring systems in medicine, critical care systems, development, validation, performance, and customization of the models, adult intensive care unit (ICU) prognostic models, model use, limitations, prognostic models in trauma care, perioperative scoring systems, assessment of organ failure, severity of illness and organ dysfunction scoring in children, and future directions. Figures show the distribution of predicted risk of death using two different prediction models among a population of patients who ultimately are observed to either live or die, a comparison of  “expected” deaths (based on the expectation that the predicted probability from the model is correct) to observed deaths within each of the 10 deciles of predicted risk, the importance of disease in the risk of death equation,  and the revised Rapaport-Teres graph for ICUs in the Project IMPACT validation set. Tables list three main ICU prognostic models, study characteristics and performance of the fourth-generation prognostic models, variables included in the fourth-generation prognostic models, potential uses of adult ICU prognostic models, variables included in the calculation of the organ failure scores, and sequential organ failure assessment. This review contains 4 highly rendered figures, 6 tables, and 293 references


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document