Objective: Academic medical centers in North America are expanding their missions from the traditional triad of patient care, research, and education to include the broader issue of healthcare delivery improvement. In recent years, integrated Critical Care Organizations have developed within academic centers to better meet the challenges of this broadening mission. The goal of this article was to provide interested administrators and intensivists with the proper resources, lines of communication, and organizational approach to accomplish integration and Critical Care Organization formation effectively. Design: The Academic Critical Care Organization Building section workgroup of the taskforce established regular monthly conference calls to reach consensus on the development of a toolkit utilizing methods proven to advance the development of their own academic Critical Care Organizations. Relevant medical literature was reviewed by literature search. Materials from federal agencies and other national organizations were accessed through the Internet. Setting: The Society of Critical Care Medicine convened a taskforce entitled "Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine" on February 22, 2016 at the 45th Critical Care Congress using the expertise of successful leaders of advanced governance Critical Care Organizations in North America to develop a toolkit for advancing Critical Care Organizations. Measurements and Main Results: Key elements of an academic Critical Care Organization are outlined. The vital missions of multidisciplinary patient care, safety, and quality are linked to the research, education, and professional development missions that enhance the value of such organizations. Core features, benefits, barriers, and recommendations for integration of academic programs within Critical Care Organizations are described. Selected readings and resources to successfully implement the recommendations are provided. Communication with medical school and hospital leadership is discussed. Conclusions: We present the rationale for critical care programs to transition to integrated Critical Care Organizations within academic medical centers and provide recommendations and resources to facilitate this transition and foster Critical Care Organization effectiveness and future success.

Objective: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock. Design: A consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations. Methods: Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (Supplemental Table 1, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/CCM/D636) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science. Results: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; 2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; 3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; 4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; 5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and 6) what information identifies organ dysfunction? Conclusions: While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock. A consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations. Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science. The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction? While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Intestinal barrier dysfunction is thought to contribute to the development of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in sepsis. Although there are similarities in clinical course following sepsis, there are significant differences in the host response depending on the initiating organism and time course of the disease, and pathways of gut injury vary widely in different preclinical models of sepsis. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the timecourse and mechanisms of intestinal barrier dysfunction are similar in disparate mouse models of sepsis with similar mortalities. FVB/N mice were randomized to receive cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) or sham laparotomy, and permeability was measured to fluoresceinisothiocyanate conjugated-dextran (FD-4) six to 48h later. Intestinal permeability was elevated following CLP at all timepoints measured, peaking at 6 to 12h. Tight junction proteins claudin 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 15, Junctional Adhesion Molecule-A (JAM-A), occludin, and ZO-1 were than assayed by Western blot, real-time polymerase chain reaction, and immunohistochemistry 12h after CLP to determine potential mechanisms underlying increases in intestinal permeability. Claudin 2 and JAM-A were increased by sepsis, whereas claudin-5 and occludin were decreased by sepsis. All other tight junction proteins were unchanged. A further timecourse experiment demonstrated that alterations in claudin-2 and occludin were detectable as early as 1 h after the onset of sepsis. Similar experiments were then performed in a different group of mice subjected to Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia. Mice with pneumonia had an increase in intestinal permeability similar in timecourse and magnitude to that seen in CLP. Similar changes in tight junction proteins were seen in both models of sepsis although mice subjected to pneumonia also had a marked decrease in ZO-1 not seen in CLP. These results indicate that two disparate, clinically relevant models of sepsis induce a significant increase in intestinal permeability mediated through a common pathway involving alterations in claudin 2, claudin 5, JAM-A, and occludin although model-specific differences in ZO-1 were also identified.

Background: Resident remediation is required for all residents who do not meet minimum standards in one or more of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies. The Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine Remediation Taskforce identified the need for case-based examples of remediation efforts. Objectives: 1) To describe a complicated resident remediation case and employ consensus panel evaluation of the process. 2) To discuss the available assessment tools (including neuropsychologic/medical testing), due process, documentation, reassessment, and relevant barriers to implementation for this and other resident remediations. Discussion: Details of a remediation case were altered to protect resident confidentiality, and then presented to a multidisciplinary group of program directors. The case details, action plan, and course were submitted and the remediation process, action plan, and course are assessed based on a standardized remediation approach. The resident entered remediation for poor organizational skills and an inability to make or follow through with patient care plans. Opportunities for improvement in the applied remediation process are identified and discussed. Legal concerns and utility of neuropsychological assessment of residents are reviewed. Conclusions: Remediation requires a complicated and detailed effort. This case demonstrates issues that program directors may face when working with residents and provides suggestions for use of specific remediation tools. (c) 2013 Elsevier Inc.

Postoperative organ failure is a challenging disease process that is better prevented than treated. Providers should use close observation and clinical judgment, and checklists of best practices to minimize the risk of organ failure in their patients. The treatment of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (MODS) generally remains supportive, outside of rapid initiation of source control (when appropriate) and targeted antibiotic therapy. More specific treatments may be developed as the complex pathophysiology of MODS is better understood and more homogenous patient populations are selected for study.

IMPORTANCE Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination.OBJECTIVE To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock.PROCESS A task force (n =3D 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment).KEY FINDINGS FROMEVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant.RECOMMENDATIONS Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65mmHg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (> 18mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100mmHg or less.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.