Published online Aug 4, 2017. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v6.i3.153
Peer-review started: November 15, 2016
First decision: February 15, 2017
Revised: February 23, 2017
Accepted: April 24, 2017
Article in press: April 24, 2017
Published online: August 4, 2017
Processing time: 260 Days and 5.8 Hours
Intensive care medicine remains one of the most cost-driving areas within hospitals with high personnel costs. Under the scope of limited budgets and reimbursement, realistic needs are essential to justify personnel staffing. Unfortunately, all existing staffing models are top-down calculations with a high variability in results. We present a workload-oriented model, integrating quality of care, efficiency of processes, legal, educational, controlling, local, organisational and economic aspects. In our model, the physician’s workload solely related to the intensive care unit depends on three tasks: Patient-oriented tasks, divided in basic tasks (performed in every patient) and additional tasks (necessary in patients with specific diagnostic and therapeutic requirements depending on their specific illness, only), and non patient-oriented tasks. All three tasks have to be taken into account for calculating the required number of physicians. The calculation tool further allows to determine minimal personnel staffing, distribution of calculated personnel demand regarding type of employee due to working hours per year, shift work or standby duty. This model was introduced and described first by the German Board of Anesthesiologists and the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine in 2008 and since has been implemented and updated 2012 in Germany. The modular, flexible nature of the Excel-based calculation tool should allow adaption to the respective legal and organizational demands of different countries. After 8 years of experience with this calculation, we report the generalizable key aspects which may help physicians all around the world to justify realistic workload-oriented personnel staffing needs.
Core tip: After 8 years of experience with the first calculation tool for physician staffing on intensive care units, generalizable key aspects are presented to help physicians all around the world to justify realistic personnel needs. A workload-oriented modular, flexible Excel-based calculation tool is presented, integrating quality of care, efficiency of processes, legal, educational, controlling, local, organisational and economic aspects. Staffing calculations reflect basic tasks (every patient), additional tasks (specific diagnostic and therapeutic requirements), non patient-oriented tasks, and, auxilliary calculations, such as minimal personnel staffing, distribution of personnel demand regarding type of employee due to working hours per year, shift work or standby duty.
- Citation: Weiss M, Marx G, Iber T. Generalizable items and modular structure for computerised physician staffing calculation on intensive care units. World J Crit Care Med 2017; 6(3): 153-163
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3141/full/v6/i3/153.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5492/wjccm.v6.i3.153
Intensive care medicine is one of the most cost-driving areas within hospitals with high personnel costs[1,2]. Thus, realistic requirements for personnel staffing are highly needed. Several professional societies in Germany (DGAI, BDA, DIVI, DGCH, BDCH)[3], Europe (ESICM)[4,5] or the United States (SCCM)[6,7] made recommendations for the staffing and organisation of interdisciplinary intensive care units (ICUs). The presence of physicians on ICUs 24-h, 7 d a week, 365 d a year are justified by the physicians perspective[3,4,6,7], and, in Germany, economically relevant for reimbursement. Unfortunately, all existing staffing models are top-down calculations with a high variability in the calculated results. In turn, this variability often reflects the range between sufficient personnel resources and being underpowered, thereby leading to controversial discussions. Taking into account quality of care, it is necessary to calculate the need by a bottom-up method based on the performed procedures and actions. Furthermore, in the G-DRG-reimbursement system, costs for continuous medical education are insufficiently taken into consideration[8]. Bearing these aspects in mind, the working group “personnel management of BDA und DGAI” published a workload-oriented modular calculation model for personnel staffing of physicians in the ICU in 2008[9] and an update in 2012[10]. Thereby, the actual-state of personnel staffing on the ICU can be compared with the necessary target-state and allows physician staffing on a workload basis. The BDA and DGAI tool enables an individualised systematic analysis for every type of hospital[10]. The purpose of this paper is to present generalizable items and a modular structure for a computerised calculation tool for widespread use which may help physicians to justify realistic workload-oriented personnel staffing requirements on ICUs all around the world.
Generalizable items of personnel staffing in the ICU are presented. The workload-oriented calculation[9,10] has been developed for every type of ICU, taking into account various magnitudes, premises and organisational structures of hospitals, and degrees of care. The basic consideration in this model is analysing the workload of physicians on ICUs, which has been divided in basic tasks, additional tasks, and non patient-oriented tasks (including management issues and teaching). The personnel demand for these tasks can be calculated using Excel-based “calculation tools” (Tables 1-4). In addition, “assistance tools” can be provided to calculate minimal personnel staffing, distribution of calculated personnel need regarding type of employee due to working hours per year, shift work or stand by duty (Tables 5-8).
In-house | Standard | In-house time | Standard time | Physicians/handing over | ||||
Time (min) | Time (min) | Physician/patient | Time/patient | Physician/patient | Time/patient | |||
Admission (time per patient, including daily routine on day of admission) | ||||||||
Patient takeover | 5 | 5 | ||||||
Clinical evaluation | 5 | 5 | ||||||
Writing of admission documents | 20 | 20 | ||||||
Writing of physician's instructions | 10 | 10 | ||||||
Reimbursement documentation (DRGs) | 10 | 10 | ||||||
Basic examination and controls | 5 | 5 | ||||||
Handing over round | 5 | 5 | ||||||
Senior physician round | 5 | 5 | ||||||
Sum | 65 | 65 | ||||||
Daily routine (time per patient) | ||||||||
Transit time | 5 | 5 | ||||||
Physical examination and status | 5 | 5 | ||||||
Writing of physician's instructions | 5 | 5 | ||||||
Documentation | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Radiology round | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Microbiology round | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Physiotherapy round | 10 | 10 | ||||||
Talking with relatives | 5 | 5 | ||||||
Rounds with consultants | 5 | 5 | ||||||
Sum | 41 | 41 | ||||||
Omission/demission (time per patient) | ||||||||
Final examination | 3 | 3 | ||||||
Final documentation | 15 | 15 | ||||||
Physician's letter | 5 | 5 | ||||||
Handing over | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Sum | 25 | 25 | ||||||
Handing over medical rounds (time per patient) | ||||||||
Shift 1 | Handing over 1 Mo - Fr | 25 | 5 | 25 | 5 | 5 | ||
Shift 2 | Handing over 2 Mo - Fr | 25 | 5 | 25 | 5 | 5 | ||
Shift 3 | Handing over 3 Mo - Fr | 15 | 5 | 15 | 5 | 3 | ||
Senior physician round Mo - Fr | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 1 | |||
Sum Mo - Fr | 75 | 70 | ||||||
Shift 1 | Handing over 1 Sa, Su, public holiday | 15 | 5 | 15 | 5 | 3 | ||
Shift 2 | Handing over 2 Sa, Su, public holiday | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | ||
Shift 3 | Handing over 3 Sa, Su, public holiday | 15 | 5 | 15 | 5 | 3 | ||
Senior physician round Sa, Su, public holiday | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | |||
Sum Sa, Su, public holidays | 35 | 35 |
Inhouse time (min) | Standard time (min) | Numbers per yr | Total time | ||
Examinations | |||||
Angiography (diagnostic/interventional) | 120 | 120 | 45 | 5400 | |
CT scan | 60 | 45 | 379 | 22740 | |
Examination | 20 | 20 | |||
Preparation time for transit | 20 | 20 | |||
Transit time | 20 | 20 | |||
Magentic resonance tomography MRT | 65 | 65 | 80 | 5200 | |
Examination | 20 | 20 | |||
Preparation time for transit | 30 | 30 | |||
Transit time | 15 | 15 | |||
Diagnostic bronchoscopy | 40 | 40 | 298 | 11920 | |
Twelve-lead ECG | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | |
Haemodynamics (PAC/PiCCO) | 15 | 15 | 114 | 1710 | |
Limon | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | |
CVVHF (Heparin)/setup, change | 30 | 30 | 2 | 60 | |
CVVHF (Citrate)/setup, change | 40 | 40 | 398 | 15920 | |
MARS | 120 | 120 | 0 | 0 | |
Thrombelastography (TEG) | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | |
Setting up | 5 | 5 | |||
Control | 5 | 5 | |||
Finalization | 10 | 10 | |||
Tasks/procedures | |||||
Ascites puncture | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | |
Installation of arterial line | 10 | 10 | 254 | 2540 | |
ARDS - 135° position | 20 | 20 | 280 | 5600 | |
Transfusion blood/coagulation products (per unit) | 5 | 5 | 2732 | 13660 | |
Cardioversion | 15 | 15 | 4 | 60 | |
Insertion of central lines (CVC, Sheldon, PiCCO) | 40 | 40 | 374 | 14960 | |
Intracranial pressure measurement | 15 | 15 | 16 | 240 | |
Intubation | 15 | 15 | 100 | 1500 | |
Support of consultants | 10 | 10 | 49 | 490 | |
Transportation to operating theatre (in/out) | 20 | 20 | 2600 | 52000 | |
Installation of PAC/PiCCO | 10 | 10 | 1 | 10 | |
Isolation of patients (f.e. MRSA)/d | 15 | 15 | 45 | 675 | |
Installation of peridural catheters | 30 | 30 | 6 | 180 | |
Percutaneous puncture of bladder | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | |
Puncture of pleura (one-time) | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | |
Transesophageal echocardiography | 45 | 45 | 31 | 1395 | |
Chest tube | 30 | 30 | 113 | 3390 | |
Tracheotomy (dilation/plastically) | 60 | 60 | 93 | 5580 | |
Transvenous pacemaker | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | |
Ultrasonography of bladder | 10 | 10 | 238 | 2380 | |
Ultrasonography of pleura | 10 | 10 | 200 | 2000 | |
Transfer of patient to external institutions | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | |
Major wound care | 15 | 15 | 50 | 750 | |
Additional efforts (onetime/patient/stay) | |||||
Physician's letter (extensive, multi-page) | 30 | 30 | 708 | 21240 | |
Final documentation in decease | 30 | 30 | 113 | 3390 | |
Inquires by health insurance | 15 | 15 | 35 | 525 | |
Preparation for rehabilitation | 45 | 45 | 107 | 4815 | |
Sum additional tasks | |||||
In min | 200330 | ||||
In h | 3339 |
Time in h per year | FE net | |||
Working groups | Name working groups ... Projects | |||
Airway management | 84 | 0.04 | ||
Haemostaseology | 84 | 0.04 | ||
Regional anaesthesia | 84 | 0.04 | ||
Working group A | 84 | 0.04 | Ultrasound | |
Working group B | 84 | 0.04 | Quality management, SOPs | |
Working group C | 42 | 0.02 | Hygiene standards | |
Administrative tasks | ||||
Waste management/recycling | 42 | 0.02 | ||
Department homepage | 42 | 0.02 | ||
Controlling | 84 | 0.04 | ||
Duty rota/duty pay off | 218 | 0.10 | ||
Inhouse continued education | 42 | 0.02 | ||
Executive board meetings | 104 | 0.05 | ||
Anual report | 84 | 0.04 | ||
Documentation of effort | 84 | 0.04 | ||
Computers and interconnection | 84 | 0.04 | ||
Rotation | 21 | 0.01 | ||
Emergency room management | 21 | 0.01 | ||
Rota plan | 42 | 0,02 | ||
Holiday plan | 42 | 0.02 | ||
Certificates | 42 | 0.02 | ||
Administrative task A | 84 | 0.04 | Strategy planning | |
Administrative task B | 0.00 | |||
Administrative task C | 0.00 | |||
Work in committees | ||||
Antibiotics | 42 | 0.02 | ||
Drugs | 42 | 0.02 | ||
Urban planning | 84 | 0.04 | ||
Equipment | 84 | 0.04 | ||
Materials management and control | 42 | 0.02 | ||
Transfusions | 42 | 0.02 | ||
Committee A | 84 | 0.04 | Patients's feedback | |
Committee B | 0.00 | |||
Committee C | 0.00 | |||
Students in practical year (PY) | ||||
Number of PY students per year | 8 | |||
Time demand of physicians for PY students (h) | 2192 | 1.30 | 1 gross physician/8 PY-students | |
Work in projects | ||||
Project A | 218 | 0.10 | Antibiotic stewardship | |
Project B | 0.00 | |||
Project C | 0.00 | |||
Project D | 0.00 | |||
Project E | 0.00 | |||
Teaching | ||||
Nurses | 500 | 0.23 | ||
Other matters | 0.00 | |||
Regulatory decrees/representatives | 0.00 | |||
Worker protection | 52 | 0.02 | ||
Data security | 52 | 0.02 | ||
Diagnosis related groups | 52 | 0.02 | ||
Hygiene | 52 | 0.02 | ||
Devices | 52 | 0.02 | ||
Hazardous material | 52 | 0.02 | ||
Ordinance on medical devices | 52 | 0.02 | ||
Quality management | 52 | 0.02 | ||
Protection against X-rays | 52 | 0.02 | ||
Transplantation | 52 | 0.02 | ||
Sum hours net per year (h) | 5348.4 | 3.16 |
Time demand per patient (min) | |||
Patient days per year | 5868 | ||
Caes per year | 705 | ||
Public holidays/yr | 11 | ||
Total amount | |||
Numbers of "admissions" | 705 | Admission | 65 |
Numbers of "daily routine" | 5163 | Daily routine | 41 |
Numbers of "discharges/transferrals" | 705 | Discharge/transferral | 25 |
Numbers of "handing over rounds monday - friday" | 4019 | Handing over round monday - friday | 75 |
Numbers of "handing over rounds Sat, Sun, public hol." | 1849 | Handing over rounds Sat, Sun, public holidays | 35 |
Total times | |||
Time "takeover" | 45825 min | ||
Time "daily routine" | 211683 min | ||
Time "discharges/transferrals" | 17625 min | ||
Time "handing over rounds monday - friday" | 301438 min | ||
Numbers "handing over rounds Sat, Sun, public hol." | 64709 min | ||
Total time BT | 641280 min | ||
10688 h | |||
Total time AT | 3339 h | ||
Time demand (BT + AT) | 14027 h | ||
Time for non patient-oriented tasks | 5348 h | ||
Holidays for shift workers | 205 h | ||
Total time expenditure | 19580 h | ||
Rest allowance in % | 19.5% | ||
Total time expenditure plus rest allowance | 23398 h | ||
Working hours without break per day (h) | 8.4 | ||
Standard weekly hours of FE in h | 42 | ||
Annual net time per FE (h) | 1691 | Gross time per FE | 2192 h |
Number of FE | 11.6 | (net 1) | |
Number of beds | 16 | ||
LS role | 0.4 | (0.15 FE/6 beds/net) | |
Leadership role h/yr | 676 | (hours for 0.15 FE/6 beds/net) | |
Number of physicians < 3 mo of ICU experience/yr | 7 | ||
PT | 2.1 | (0.3 FE/physician < 3 mo ICU experience/year/net) | |
Postgraduate training hours per year | 3550 | (hours for 0.3 FE/physician < 3 mo ICU experience/yr/net) | |
Total time + leader ship, PT | 23806 | h | |
Number FE without continuing medical education | 14.1 | (net 2) | |
CME/SA (h) | 704 | 50 | (h/yr/FE) |
Continuing medical education/staff appraisal in FE | 0.4 | ||
Total time + LS, PT, CME, SA (net total) | 24511 | h | |
Number FE (net total) | 14.5 |
Carryover of table total calculation, total time + rest allowance, leadership, postgraduate training | 24511 | ||||||
CME, staff appraisal: AWT desired net value (h) | |||||||
Standardweekly hours (h) | Publicholidays | GrossAWT (h) | Rest allowance plusLS, PT, CME, SA (%) | NetAWT (h) | Number ofphysicians | NetAWT real (h) | |
Employee type 1 | 42.00 | 11 | 2192 | 19.5 | 1691 | 4.0 | 6762 |
Employee type 2 | 21.00 | 11 | 1096 | 19.5 | 808 | 2.0 | 1616 |
Employee type 3 | 48.00 | 11 | 2506 | 19.5 | 1943 | 1.0 | 1943 |
Employee type 4 | 54.00 | 11 | 2819 | 19.5 | 2195 | 3.0 | 6584 |
Employee type 5 | 10.50 | 11 | 548 | 19.5 | 367 | 1.0 | 367 |
Employee type 6 | 40.00 | 11 | 2088 | 19.5 | 1606 | 3.0 | 4819 |
Employee type 7 | 20.00 | 11 | 1044 | 19.5 | 766 | 3.0 | 2298 |
Employee type 8 | 11 | 0 | 19.5 | -74 | 0 | ||
Employee type 9 | 11 | 0 | 19.5 | -74 | 0 | ||
Employee type 10 | 11 | 0 | 19.5 | -74 | 0 | ||
Sum employees | 17.0 | ||||||
Sum annual working time net (h) | 24389 | ||||||
Hours net demand (if negative values) (h) | -121 |
Time handing over round (min) | 45 | |||||
Shift model hours | Number of handing overs day | Sum handing over (min) per day | Sum handing over (h) per day | |||
8 h | 3 | 135 | 2.25 | |||
12 h | 2 | 90 | 1.50 | |||
x h | 0 | 0.00 | ||||
Standard weekly hours FE in h | 42 | Gross | Net | |||
per year | per year | |||||
Working hours per day in h | 8.4 | 2192 | 1691 | |||
Rest allowance in % | 19.5 | |||||
Minimal demand of physicians | ||||||
Minimal occupancy: 1 physician, 24 h/d, 7 d/wk, 365 d/yr | ||||||
Number of physicians | Shift | Net hours | Net hours | Gross hours | FE net | |
per shift | per day | per year | per year | 42 | ||
plus handing over | plus handing over | plus handing over | h/wk | |||
1 | 8 h | 26.25 | 9581 | 11450 | 6.8 | |
1 | 12 h | 25.50 | 9308 | 11122 | 6.6 | |
1 | x h | 24.00 | 8760 | 10468 | 6.2 |
Characteristics of shift work | Demand of physicians | |||||||||||
Duty hours (shift) | 06:00-14:54 | |||||||||||
Public holidays/year | 11 | Carryover of table total calculation, total time | ||||||||||
Rest allowance in % | 19.5 | plus RA, LS, PT, CME, SA = | ||||||||||
Working hours without break per day (h) | 8.4 | Sum net annual working time desired (h) | 24511 | |||||||||
Standard weekly hours of full-time employee (FE) in h | 42 | Sum number full-time physicians (net total) desired | 14.5 | |||||||||
Gross annual time per full-time employee FE (h) | 2192 | |||||||||||
Net annual time per full-time employee FE (h)(without public holidays, holidays, illness) | 1691 | |||||||||||
Shift | Days | Shiftmodel | Start | End | Break h | Working hours without break h | Physician/shift | Demand/week | Physicians | Demand /year | ||
Workdays/week (n) | Workhours/week | Workdays/ year (n) | Workhours/ year net (h) | Full-time employees/year net | ||||||||
a. m. shift | Weekday | 8 h | 6:00 | 14:54 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 5 | 5 | 210 | 250 | 10500 | 6.2 |
p. m. shift | Weekday | 8 h | 14:00 | 22:54 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 2 | 5 | 84 | 250 | 4200 | 2.5 |
night shift | Weekday | 8 h | 22:00 | 6:54 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 2 | 5 | 84 | 250 | 4200 | 2.5 |
a. m. shift | Weekday | 8 h | 6:00 | 14:54 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 2 | 2 | 33.6 | 104 | 1747.2 | 1 |
p. m. shift | Weekday | 8 h | 14:00 | 22:54 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 2 | 2 | 33.6 | 104 | 1747.2 | 1 |
night shift | Weekday | 8 h | 22:00 | 6:54 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 2 | 2 | 33.6 | 104 | 1747.2 | 1 |
a. m. shift | Public holiday | 8 h | 6:00 | 14:54 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 2 | 11 | 184.8 | 0.1 | ||
p. m. shift | Public holiday | 8 h | 14:00 | 22:54 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 2 | 11 | 184.8 | 0.1 | ||
night shift | Public holiday | 8 h | 22:00 | 6:54 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 2 | 11 | 184.8 | 0.1 | ||
Senior physician | Weekend/public holiday | 8:00 | 10:00 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 115 | 230 | 0.1 | |
Inhouse special duty | 0:00 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
Sum | 482.8 | 24926 | 14.7 | |||||||||
Net demand | -415.4 | -0.2 |
Charcteristics of standby duty | Demand of physicians | ||||||||||||
Duty hours (shift) | 07:15-16:09 | ||||||||||||
Public holidays/year | 11 | Carryover of table total calculation, total time plus | |||||||||||
Rest allowance in % | 19.5 | RA, LS, PT, CME, SA = | |||||||||||
Working hours without break per day (h) | 8.4 | Sum net annual working time desired (h) | 24511 | ||||||||||
Standard weekly hours of full-time employee (FE) in h | 42 | Sum number full-time physicians (net total) desired | 14.5 | ||||||||||
Gross annual time per full-time employee FE (h) | 2192 | ||||||||||||
Net annual time per full-time employee FE (h) (without public holidays, holidays, illness) | 1691 | ||||||||||||
Shift | Days | Type | Start | End | Break h | Working hours without break h | Physician/shift | Demand physicians/wk | Demand physicians/yr | ||||
Workdays/wk (n) | Workhours/wk | Workdays/yr (n) | Workhours/ yr net | Core time full-time employee/ yr net | Standby duty full-time employees/yr net | ||||||||
a. m. shift | Weekday | 7:15 | 16:09 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 3 | 5 | 126 | 250 | 6300 | 3.7 | ||
p. m. shift | Weekday | 13:30 | 22:24 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 2 | 5 | 84 | 250 | 4200 | 2.5 | ||
x shift | Weekday | 0:00 | 0:00 | 5 | 0 | 250 | 0 | 0 | |||||
a. m. shift | Weekday | 7:15 | 16:09 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 104 | 0 | 0 | ||
p. m. shift | Weekday | 0:00 | 0:00 | 2 | 0 | 104 | 0 | 0 | |||||
x shift | Weekday | 0:00 | 0:00 | 2 | 0 | 104 | 0 | 0 | |||||
a. m. shift | Public holiday | 7:15 | 16:09 | 0.5 | 8.4 | 2 | 11 | 184.8 | 0.1 | ||||
p. m. shift | Public holiday | 0:00 | 0:00 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
x shift | Public holiday | 0:00 | 0:00 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Standby duty | Weekday | 1 | 0:00 | 0:00 | 0 | 5 | 0.0 | 250 | 0 | 0 | |||
Standby duty | Weekend | 1 | 0:00 | 0:00 | 0 | 2 | 0.0 | 104 | 0 | 0 | |||
Standby duty | Public holiday | 1 | 0:00 | 0:00 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Standby duty | Weekday | 2 | 16:09 | 8:00 | 0 | 15.85 | 2 | 5 | 158.5 | 250 | 7925 | 4.7 | |
Standby duty | Weekend | 2 | 7:15 | 8:00 | 0 | 24.75 | 2 | 2 | 99 | 104 | 5148 | 3 | |
Standby duty | Public holiday | 2 | 7:15 | 8:00 | 0 | 24.75 | 2 | 11 | 544.5 | 0.3 | |||
Senior physician | Weekend /public holiday | 8:00 | 10:00 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 115 | 230 | 0.1 | ||
Inhouse special duty | 0:00 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
Sum | 261.5 | 24532.3 | 6.3 | 8.2 | |||||||||
Sum core time, standby duty + special duties full-time employees net | 14.5 | ||||||||||||
Net demand | -21.7 | 0 |
First of all, reflections are inevitable regarding the local situation, performance of the hospital, subset of patients, premises and organisational structures. Standard times regarding workload tasks have to be defined, at best should have been measured in the distinct hospital, and consented by different stakeholders.
However, before calculating workload-related personnel staffing, some aspects have to be clarified: (1) in-house times for admission, daily routine, omission and handing over by physicians; (2) in-house number and times for tasks, procedures and examinations, and non-recurring tasks performed per year per patients; (3) number of ICU beds; (4) number of cases and patient days per year; (5) average drop-out times (holidays, illness); (6) holidays given to shift workers, gross annual working time in hours per work-fellow; (7) number of physicians in specialist training with, e.g., less than 3 mo ICU experience; (8) time for non patient-oriented tasks of the ICU physicians (e.g., working groups, administration, teaching); (9) number of full-time and partial-time physicians and working hours per week and year; and (10) shift work and standby duty.
In respect to all these items, e.g., with average drop-out time of 19.5% in a three-shift system and legal working regulations regarding handing over to other work-shifts, the workload results in 26.25 h for three physicians per day. In other words, 6.8 full-time physicians are necessary to run an ICU 24-h, 7 d a week, 365 d a year. This minimal staffing is independent of the number of beds and patients.
Thus, e.g., with 12.75 h per day at maximum in shift work with at maximum 48 h per week and a standby duty of maximum 54 h per week, minimal staffing demand can be calculated (Table 6). Weekly working hours multiplied with 52.2 result in the potential gross working time of a physician. The real net working time of a physician is yielded by subtracting the drop-out times (holidays, average times of illness) from the gross working time.
In the following, a modular calculation model for personnel staffing of physicians is presented. For better understanding, we filled the tables with a sample of a virtual ICU (Tables 1-8). After gathering the relevant data for the calculation sheets, the respective data can be filled in the input fields (marked in white color in Tables 1-8). When all the relevant white fields in the Tables of a distinct ICU are filled with the respective data, staff requirements/year in hours are summed up, and automatically transferred to the following tables.
Basic effort includes all duties of physicians, which have to be done in each patient on admission, on a daily basis, handing over to other work-shifts, and on omission from the ICU, irrespective of severity of disease (Table 1). For calculation, different personnel staffing variations on working days, weekends and holidays have been taken into account.
The additional tasks, depending on severity of disease and organ dysfunctions, reflect all other tasks, procedures and examinations, as well as non-recurring tasks performed per year per patients (Table 2).
Non patient-oriented-tasks reflect working groups, administrative tasks, collaboration in commissions, teaching of students or nurses, tasks in projects and regulatory decrees (e.g., X-rays, hygiene, quality management, laws regarding medical products)[11], knowledge development and continuation requirements (Table 3).
Total calculation results from patient days and cases per year, time efforts for basic and additional tasks, and for non patient-oriented tasks, which are summed up (Table 4). To result in the net annual working time, festive seasons and holiday seasons have to be taken into account. Additional times, e.g., for holidays given to shift workers, should be added. Following, times for rest allowance for full-time work-fellows should be stated. Rest allowance reflects holidays and average illness, and have to be defined as percentage of gross annual working time (Table 4). Real annual personnel demand in hours can be converted to annual full-time equivalents in that the sum of annual hours is divided through the net annual working time hours of an employee. If management functions are associated with the number of beds (e.g., 0.15 physicians per 6 beds), proportional personnel staff for management can be calculated (e.g., 0.3 physicians per fellows with less than 3 mo of ICU experience). Moreover, given the number of work-fellows in training per year, additional staff for teaching can be stated. On top, additional time for work-fellow dialogue and knowledge continuation for each full-time work-fellow should be added. Taken together, all these items lead to the number of full-time physicians needed per year to fulfill the items named above.
If the total workload and need of personnel staffing in full-time physicians per year is known, assistance tools can clarify how to distribute employees with differing average working time per week (Table 5). As shown in the example in Table 5, the mix with partial-time and full-time physicians results in sum in 17 work-fellows to fulfill the tasks which were calculated to be provided by 14.5 full-time employees.
Calculation of minimal physician staffing per year to run an ICU is presented in Table 6. How many work-fellows do I need at minimum to guarantee a 24-h, 7-d a week, 365-d a year coverage with physician personnel, and in some countries, depending on that to get reimbursed or fulfill quality standards? Calculating the hours needed per year to cover full-time physician coverage, reflecting average drop-out times (holidays, average time for illness, e.g., 19.5% per year) and legal working regulations (e.g., 12.75 h per day at maximum in shift work with at maximum 48 h per week with standby duty of 54 h at maximum per week), minimal staffing demand can be calculated (Table 6). In this calculation, times for non-patient-oriented tasks, continuing medical education, leadership tasks, postgraduate training and staff appraisal are not considered.
If the total workload and need of personnel staffing in full-time physicians is known, an assistance tool may help to calculate the personnel needed to run the ICU based on shift work (Table 7).
Also, with known total workload, with an assistance tool, calculation of the personnel needed to run the ICU based on standby duty is possible (Table 8).
One calculation tool cannot cover all aspects worldwide. However, modular tools, such as the BDA/DGAI tool[10], have the key advantage to systematically look at the own performance spectrum, structural and legal conditions, and to calculate the corresponding personnel need. It should be kept in mind that besides all the workload-based calculations, due to arrange for manpower, a minimal personnel staffing is necessary to run an ICU with full-time coverage by a physician 24-h, 7-d a week, 365-d a year. This minimal staffing demand is independent of the workload, number of beds and patients.
Regarding medicolegal aspects, professional societies in Germany (DIVI, DGAI) and in Europe (ESICM) agree on the demand of continuous presence of physicians on the ICU. Previous top-down staffing models resulted in a high variability between sufficient and underpowered personnel resources. For example, the top-down calculation of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine suggested the need of 5 physicians per ICU comprising 6 to 8 beds per year[4,5]. Thus, calculation of a 24 bed unit leads to a demand of 15 to 20 physicians, and, thereby, to a difference in demand of 5 physicians or 25%. In Germany, 24-h coverage by a physician is an inalienable prerequisite for reimbursement within the G-DRG system in terms of quality management. The presented calculation instrument directly couples workload to the personnel demand. Irrespective of quantitative calculations of staff, in Germany, reflecting legal demands, it has to be assured that performance is delivered all the time economically and according to commonly accepted standards of care and knowledge[12] on the level of an experienced physician[13], with benefit for the patient. Thus, besides quantitative, qualitative cornerstones for personnel requirement of physicians on ICUs have to be taken into account. The modular basis of the BDA/DGAI tool allows subsets of patients treated, social and industrial law, medical quality standards, economic and reimbursement items of the respective countries to be taken into consideration and to adapt the tool for personnel staffing in various countries and types of hospitals. In former days, the ICU personnel staffing tool was allocated via disc in Germany. Currently, it is provided online for free to all BDA/DGAI members, and, at the owner’s expense, to interested stakeholders by BDA/DGAI[10]. The tool is widespread all over Germany in university and non-university hospitals and has been fine-tuned through the years since 2008, reflecting and integrating the feedback of the users. However, studies reflecting improved outcomes or better productivity have not been performed. Feedback to BDA/DGAI revealed that personnel calculations were effectuated in around 1/3 of the users, transposed partially in 1/3, and not accepted in 1/3. Unfortunately, there is no in total or representative scientific evaluation of personnel staffing in non-university and university hospitals all over Germany which could reflect the gap between the calculations done by the tool and the actual personnel staffing of the ICUs. Moreover, whether staffing differences from basic and regular care up to maximal care hospitals result in better productivity or improved outcome in Germany is still a matter of debate. However, quality of care, length of stay and mortality in ICUs has been reported to be highly dependent on organisational structures, personnel staffing and qualification of physicians[9,14,15]. Reductions in personnel staffing are counterproductive if safety for patients and staff, and efficiency of processes decline[16-19], and/or the costs for materials increase[18,20]. Furthermore, it has to be taken into account that optimal reduction in errors is expected with a 85% average utilisation of an ICU with 100% of personnel staffing[19]. To achieve optimal quality, physician staffing has been claimed as follows[5,21]: The ICU has to be under a qualified, uniform, physician organised guidance, e.g., by a physician of a specialty which has intensive care medicine as an integrated part, such as anaesthesia, surgery, internal medicine, and who has special certification in intensive care medicine. The leader of the ICU should not be in other duties in his hospital, devoted full-time or at least 75% of time to intensive care[5,21].
To find out whether timings for tasks are realistic, in the ICU personnel staffing tool, we proceeded as follows. To determine duration of tasks to be performed, estimations by experts’ opinion (10 leaders of ICUs), a survey in 200 ICUs in Germany (practitioning ICU physicians), and real time measurements on a surgical and a medical university and a non-university interdisciplinary ICU of a basic and regular care hospital have been compared[22]. In 20%, expert opinion survey and measured times were consistent. Differences, such as higher values for daily routine in the basic care non-university hospital, may be explained by different process operations on the various wards. Thus, necessary time requirements depend on the comparability of basic prerequisites, process operations, structural and legal conditions. Therefore, cited timings for tasks can serve as an indication for time requirements, however, have to be verified, at best with real time measurements in the own structural conditions and process operations.
Tasks beyond the ICU, such as initial trauma care, care for in-hospital emergencies or engagement as external emergency physician, should not be incorporated in the staffing calculation of the ICU, but calculated separately. Quantitative and qualitative cornerstones for personnel requirement of physicians in anaesthesia reflecting recent legal rights of patients in Germany, meeting legal demands of therapeutic quality, and, thus, serving patient safety, have been published in 2015 by the German Society of Anesthesiologists (BDA) and the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI)[23]. Subsequently, the current Excel-based calculation tool version (2015) regarding physician staffing in anaesthesia has been published, especially reflecting recent laws governing physician’s working conditions and competence in the field of anaesthesia, as well as demands of strengthened legal rights of patients, patient care and safety[24].
Workload-oriented models of physician staffing with generalizable items taking into account quality, efficiency of processes, legal, educational, controlling, local, organisational and economic aspects, differentiating basic effort, additional effort, and non patient-oriented tasks, may help to justify realistic personnel staffing demands. Modular calculation models may serve to individualise generalizable aspects to various types of hospitals, process operations, structural and legal conditions, as well as funding and refunding systems, resulting in broadly use and acceptance by various stakeholders all around the world. In the future, it should be evaluated whether this model may lead to improvement of patient safety and quality of management.
We thank Vagts DA, Schleppers A, Leidinger W, Sehn N and Klöss T of the working group “personnel management of BDA and DGAI” for their constructive contribution to develop and update the workmanship oriented modular calculation model for personnel staffing of physicians in the ICU in 2008 and in 2012. We thank Clair Hartmann, MD, working in our Department of Anesthesiology in Ulm, for checking the manuscript as a native speaker.
Manuscript source: Invited manuscript
Specialty type: Critical care medicine
Country of origin: Germany
Peer-review report classification
Grade A (Excellent): A
Grade B (Very good): 0
Grade C (Good): C
Grade D (Fair): 0
Grade E (Poor): 0
P- Reviewer: Krishnan T, Lin JA S- Editor: Song XX L- Editor: A E- Editor: Lu YJ
1. | Engel C, Brunkhorst FM, Bone HG, Brunkhorst R, Gerlach H, Grond S, Gruendling M, Huhle G, Jaschinski U, John S. Epidemiology of sepsis in Germany: results from a national prospective multicenter study. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:606-618. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 412] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 445] [Article Influence: 26.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
2. | Halpern NA, Pastores SM, Greenstein RJ. Critical care medicine in the United States 1985-2000: an analysis of bed numbers, use, and costs. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:1254-1259. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
3. | Weißauer W. Ausstattung und Organisation interdisziplinärer operativer Intensiveinheiten. Gemeinsame Empfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin und des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Anästhesisten sowie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie und des Berufsverbandes der Deutschen Chirurgen. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chirurgie - Mitteilungen. 2005;232-235 Available from: https://www.dgai.de/publikationen/vereinbarungen. [Cited in This Article: ] |
4. | Ferdinande P. Recommendations on minimal requirements for Intensive Care Departments. Members of the Task Force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1997;23:226-232. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
5. | Valentin A, Ferdinande P; Improvement EWGoQ. Recommendations on basic requirements for intensive care units: structural and organizational aspects. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37:1575-1587. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 202] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 178] [Article Influence: 13.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
6. | Haupt MT, Bekes CE, Brilli RJ, Carl LC, Gray AW, Jastremski MS, Naylor DF, PharmD MR, Md AS, Wedel SK. Guidelines on critical care services and personnel: Recommendations based on a system of categorization of three levels of care. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:2677-2683. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 253] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 219] [Article Influence: 10.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
7. | Dorman T, Angood PB, Angus DC, Clemmer TP, Cohen NH, Durbin CG, Falk JL, Helfaer MA, Haupt MT, Horst HM. Guidelines for critical care medicine training and continuing medical education. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:263-272. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 97] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 75] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
8. | Bundesärztekammer. Fallpauschalen-System wird zum Glücksspiel. Pressemitteilung zum 107 Deutschen Ärztetag Bremen. 2004;vom 04.11.2005 Available from: http://www.baek.de/home/themena-z/Ärztetag/107.dÄt/presse/drg. [Cited in This Article: ] |
9. | Weiss M, Marx G, Vagts D, Leidinger W, Sehn N, Iber T. Personnel requirement planning in intensive care medicine in the age of DRGs – A new performance-oriented calculation model. Anästh Intensivmed. 2008;49 Suppl 4:S41-S51 Available from: http://www.ai-online.info/aionline/Supplements;jsessionid=CFC6779ABB90C0692A2027498412B0F8. [Cited in This Article: ] |
10. | Weiss M, Marx G, Vagts DA, Schleppers A, Leidinger W, Sehn N, Klöss T, Iber T. Calculation of personnel requirement “intensive care medicine 2012-Revision of the 2008 calculation tool for the medical profession. Anästh Intensivmed. 2012;53 Suppl 3:S50-S62 [ISSN0170-5334102330] Available from: http://www.ai-online.info/aionline/Supplements;jsessionid=CFC6779ABB90C0692A2027498412B0F8. [Cited in This Article: ] |
11. | BGBl. Gesetz über Medizinprodukte (Medizinproduktegesetz – MPG) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 7. August 2002, BGBl I S. 3146, geändert am 25. November 2003, BGBl I S. 2304. Available from: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/mpg/gesamt.pdf. [Cited in This Article: ] |
12. | Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. SGB V §§ 2, 70 Abs. 1. Available from: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_5/__70.html. [Cited in This Article: ] |
13. | OLG Düsseldorf. Urteil vom 20.10.1985-8 U 100/83. 1985;. [Cited in This Article: ] |
14. | Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE, Draper EA. Variations in mortality and length of stay in intensive care units. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:753-761. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
15. | Pronovost PJ, Angus DC, Dorman T, Robinson KA, Dremsizov TT, Young TL. Physician staffing patterns and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;288:2151-2162. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
16. | Iapichino G, Gattinoni L, Radrizzani D, Simini B, Bertolini G, Ferla L, Mistraletti G, Porta F, Miranda DR. Volume of activity and occupancy rate in intensive care units. Association with mortality. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:290-297. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 78] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 69] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
17. | Tibby SM, Correa-West J, Durward A, Ferguson L, Murdoch IA. Adverse events in a paediatric intensive care unit: relationship to workload, skill mix and staff supervision. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:1160-1166. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 40] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 41] [Article Influence: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
18. | Tarnow-Mordi WO, Hau C, Warden A, Shearer AJ. Hospital mortality in relation to staff workload: a 4-year study in an adult intensive-care unit. Lancet. 2000;356:185-189. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
19. | Friesdorf W, Göbel M. Safety and Reliability of clinical work processes. Stuttgart: Ergonomia Verlag 2003; 669-672. [Cited in This Article: ] |
20. | Reinhart K. [Genuine progress in intensive care medicine must be payable also in future--a plea for a public debate]. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2004;39:187-190. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
21. | Young MP, Birkmeyer JD. Potential reduction in mortality rates using an intensivist model to manage intensive care units. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:284-289. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
22. | Miller FK, Iber T, Weiss M, Marx G, Uhlig E, Noky T, Henschel J, Vagts DA. Comparison of medical services based on expert opinion, survey and actual measurements to determine human resources. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34 Supp 1:S72. [Cited in This Article: ] |
23. | BDAktuell. | DGAInfo. Aus den Verbänden. Geschäftsführung BDA/DGAI: Behandlungsqualität und Patientensicherheit: Eckpunkte zur ärztlich-personellen Ausstattung anästhesiologischer Arbeitsplätze in Krankenhäusern. Beschluss des Erweiterten Präsidiums der DGAI vom 20.11.2014 sowie von Präsidium und Ausschuss des BDA vom 15.12.2014. Anästh Intensivmed. 2015;56:145-154 Available from: http://www.dgai.de/publikationen/shop. [Cited in This Article: ] |
24. | Weiss M, Rossaint R, Iber T. Calculation of personnel requirements in the field of anaesthesia for 2015 – Revision of the 2009 calculation basics applicable to medical services. Anästh Intensivmed. 2015;56:1-18 Available from: http://www.dgai.de/publikationen/shop. [Cited in This Article: ] |