I recently came to the realization that one doesn’t usually end up in an ICU unless the odds of making it out are not in one’s favor.
Now, I want to make it clear from the very first that my wife and I survived life-threatening medical experiences as a result of the superb care provided to both of us. Nevertheless, the experience made me aware of how ICU and hospital care has changed in the last 50 years. I have spent most of my life in ICUs from the "invention" of the Coronary Care Unit in the mid-1960s to its current iteration of an intensely monitored hospital room where emergency surgery could be performed if need be. Much of that change is a result of the variety of medical specialists who are players in the ICU drama. The other major changes have been the time restraints of house staff rotation to meet certification criteria and rotation of the senior staff in order to provide continuing on-site coverage of the ICU. As the acuteness of hospital admissions has increased, the ICU and its management have assumed a larger role in the care and the finances of major hospitals.
Some years ago, we hosted a distinguished European physician who spent 2 months with us as a visiting professor. It was at a time when we felt a need to begin to develop subspecialties in angiography, electrophysiology, and echocardiography in order to provide a research and training atmosphere for our fellowship program. Later, he wrote an editorial in his local medical journal criticizing cardiac care in the United States because of the lack of continuity. He was of the tradition that mandated that he would see the patient in the clinic, perform a cardiac catheterization himself, and follow his patient through surgery and manage their postoperative care, as was standard practice in the mid-20th century. He believed that the concept of delegating diagnostic and care responsibilities to specialty trained colleagues that he observed here was a major disaster. He should see the system now. Nevertheless, his plea for continuity in care resonates in my mind.
That need for continuity came back to me as I experienced the dizzying rotation of house staff and senior staff that takes place in the ICU today. Any semblance of continuity of care was lacking at a time when there was a need to provide information to anxious patients and their families. In the environment of medical uncertainty, when you would like to find a familiar physician to ask "How are we doing," the attending physician or medical resident in charge was either on another rotation or being covered by a colleague. No training or adherence to "sign-off" rounds can replace the need for that professional continuity. As competent and well meaning the covering doctor was, answers to questions seemed shallow. It was difficult even to express gratitude to "a" physician who had tipped the scales in my favor. One had to direct it to an amorphous team of doctors, nurses, and technicians who had participated in care. That is a reality that describes the methodology of ICU and its success. It is a reality that to a similar degree characterizes the current management of inpatient care.
It seemed that in the setting of a life-threatening experience, the link between the treating physicians and the patients or family has almost disappeared in the ICU. The challenge to us as we play our role in the ICU, and the CCU, is to establish and maintain a personal relationship with the patients and their family.
Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.