Intensivist staffing and outcome in the ICU: daytime, nighttime, 24/7?

Abstract

Purpose of review: Many hospitals, particularly large academic centers, have begun to provide 24-h in-house intensive care attending coverage. Proposed advantages for this model include improved patient care, greater provider, nursing and patient satisfaction, better communication, and greater cost-effectiveness. This review will evaluate current evidence with respect to 24/7 coverage, including patient outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and impact on training/education.

Recent findings: Evidence surrounding 24-h intensivist staffing has been mixed. Although a subset of studies suggest a possible benefit to 24-h intensivist coverage, recent prospective studies have shown no difference in major patient outcomes, including mortality and ICU length of stay between patients in ICUs with and those without 24-h intensivist coverage.

Summary: Although some studies cite increased caregiver and patient satisfaction, outcome studies find no consistent effect on patient-centered outcomes such as mortality or length of stay. Downsides to in-house nighttime attending staffing include physician burnout, adverse effects on physician health, decreased trainee autonomy, and effects on trainee specialty choices because of undesirable lifestyle considerations. Tele-ICU and other novel approaches may allow for attending supervision without physical presence.