Integrated critical care: an approach to specialist cover for critical care in the rural setting

To the Editor: The article by Hore et al1 raises many important issues for acute-care medicine in rural settings, including the need for specialists to be multiskilled and collaborate across disciplines, the lack of professional support for rural training programs and rural specialists, and the difficulty of overseeing multidisciplinary credentialling.

These issues are not unique to acute-care medicine or to the Joint Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine (JFICM). They are problems for other faculties and colleges, rural healthcare facilities and governments. Many rural specialist services in Australia and New Zealand have the benefit of considerable expertise provided by medical practitioners who are not necessarily Fellows of the relevant specialist colleges. They should be supported by collaborative efforts of the relevant colleges, which should develop initiatives to increase the numbers of specialist medical practitioners working in rural settings.

The JFICM, representing some 464 Fellows and 391 trainees, has been developing frameworks to support rural intensive care. JFICM’s goals are to develop a more flexible training program to encourage rural training; to establish a rural officer on the JFICM Board; to support a rural focus group, working through rural structures with the Committee of Presidents of Medical Colleges; and to explore liaisons with other colleges.

The argument for developing a specialty of integrated critical-care medicine implies that current programs are deficient and cannot provide a holistic, integrated approach to rural acute care. Hore and colleagues argue that “there is no formal program for training specialists for multidisciplinary rural critical-care practice”. I must correct them on this point. Their proposal in fact eloquently describes the elements of the JFICM training program, which has existed since 1977. An internationally recognised and comprehensive intensive-care/critical-care training program, its status has been confirmed with its successful accreditation by the Australian Medical Council.

The authors also suggest that “critical care” is in some way different from “intensive care”. This is not contemporary reality. The terms “intensive care” and “critical care” are one and the same.

Healthcare workers in rural and remote locations have collaboratively developed multidisciplinary working relationships that provide comprehensive acute and non-acute healthcare. The same approach should be used by authoritative bodies to resolve important issues for rural specialists and training programs. The issues do not require establishing a separate specialty.

The above comments notwithstanding, the suggestion by Hore and colleagues that specialties involved in acute care lead a collaborative process to strengthen clinical links is to be applauded. The discussions need to be inclusive of medical specialists working in intensive care medicine.