The Effect of Alternative Attending Physician Staffing Models on Outcomes for Intensive Care Unit Patients, Families, and Health Care Workers

Intensive Care Units (ICU) are an important, but troubled, part of modern health care systems. While it seems likely that both the technical and structural elements of ICU care are important determinants of relevant ICU outcomes, little is known about how the structure of ICU care affects outcomes. One element of potential importance is the way that ICU physicians (intensivists) organize themselves to provide ICU care, particularly at night. The dominant, historical ("standard") model of intensivist staffing involves an intensivist who is present during daytime hours, but then takes "call" at night from home. But, in recent years there has been widespread concern about whether patients experience adverse events or worse outcomes related to a lesser level of expertise and care readily available at night in hospitals. Only two studies, both from single ICUs, and both using simple before vs. after study designs, have conducted interventional studies directly comparing a "standard" intensivist staffing model with a "24-7" model of nighttime intensivist coverage via shift work, i.e. with the daytime intensivist giving way at the late afternoon to a nightshift intensivist who remained in the hospital and covered the ICU until morning. Those two studies found contradictory effects of the intervention. But despite the absence of clear data indicating a benefit to ICU patients associated with having intensivists remain in the hospital overnight, there has been a major movement around the world towards ICU staffing models utilizing shift work to ensure such coverage. The potential impact of such a change in staffing paradigm is large, with possible effects on all the other major stakeholders involved in ICU care: families, nurses, and house officers. Both benefits and detriments are possible.

On the one hand, moving to a shift work model from a model in which a single intensivist becomes overworked and sleep-deprived as a result of being responsible for care both day and night, has the potential to reduce the sleep deprivation, job distress, and burnout prevalent among intensivists with standard staffing models. But, it would also require more intensivists, a serious challenge given the worsening intensivist manpower shortage. Also, there are many detrimental effects of shift work on humans, including negative effects on motor function, cognition, sleep, job satisfaction, mood, errors, and cardiovascular health. Shift work is the most common reason that Emergency Medicine physicians give for leaving that field. The physical availability of an intensivist around-the-clock might also influence the problems mentioned of family dissatisfaction with communication in ICUs, and poor communication/ teamwork with physicians often perceived by ICU nurses. In ICUs of teaching hospitals, where relatively inexperienced house officers typically remain in the ICU overnight, the nighttime presence of an attending physician might influence residents' perceptions of domains such as teaching, and clinical autonomy.

This purpose of this study is to rigorously compare the effects of two different intensivist staffing models, specifically the current standard model, and a 24-7 staffing model enabled via shift work. This study will be conducted in two ICUs, one academic with house officers who remain in ICU overnight (the Medical ICU at Health Sciences Center), and one in a community hospital which currently lacks overnight, in-ICU physicians (the Victoria General Hospital).

This study is designed to improve upon both prior studies. To obviate the problems with using historical controls inherent in those before-vs-after study designs, our study will alternate the two staffing models (e.g. A-B-A-B). Also, the investigators will rigorously assess the effect of 24 hour intensivist presence on all major stakeholders, i.e. patients, families, intensivists, nurses, and house officers.