UC Davis

Tools for standardizing patient care can take many forms, including but not limited to, bundles, quality improvement and performance measures, guidelines, and protocols. Each is intended to improve compliance with interventions believed to be supported by the best available evidence, ensuring consistency of management across all patients with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes. However, in the ICU, patients typically present with complex acute illnesses and accompanying comorbidities, requiring careful tailoring of interventions and treatments for each individual patient. The rapidly changing nature of the underlying conditions also demands continuous reassessment and modification of each patient’s management on a frequent and sometimes moment-by-moment basis. Disrupting this individualized treatment approach by imposing prescriptive, overly restrictive, “one-size-fits-all” standardized treatments in the critical care setting may prevent the clinician from meeting individual patients’ needs and decrease care quality (1). This problem is compounded if the standardization tools adopted are not only inflexible but also have a poorly supported or entirely absent scientific basis. Importantly, identifiable patient subcategories often exist that fit poorly into the populations for which many interventions were developed and tested. Of equal concern, critical care trainees may become dependent on a standardized/cookbook approach to care and fail to recognize and learn how treatments must be tailored for the unique needs of each critically ill patient. Rather than rigidly standardizing critical care, approaches that recognize this complexity and are both scientifically sound and responsive to patient differences should be readily available to critical care clinicians without replacing sensible clinical judgment. Such strategies that acknowledge the limitations of available evidence hold more hope of improving, rather than inadvertently worsening, the outcome.