Question normal

I trained as an intern back in 2008, so Rivers' article was one of our main teaching resources. But I'd have to say that in the last decade of practice that I've almost never adhered strictly to the EGDT protocol. Particularly as we are continually discovering new data about topics such as transfusions in the critically ill and learning more sophisticated ways of determining volume status. That being said, I have had some amazing teachers who didn't refer to EGDT as a protocol, but as a learning tool to critically think about the pathophysiology of sepsis. I was taught not to think of the CVP in a vacuum, but in the context of the actual patient in the bed in front of me. Or that a CV Sat of 65 means something very different than one of 40. So my question is, do you think Rivers' article can still be a valuable teaching tool, and if so, how can we use it most effectively to help trainees (and us attendings) learn more about the management of septic shock?