Search

Background: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed., Methods: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations., Results: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy., Conclusion: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Objective: To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU., Design: Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017., Methods: Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified., Results: The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation., Conclusions: We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Objective: To understand the perspectives and attitudes of ICU clinicians about use of a daily goals checklist on rounds., Design: Our three data collection methods were as follows: (1) Field observations: two investigators conducted field observations to understand how and by whom the daily goals checklist was used for 80 ICU patient rounds over 6 days. (2) Document analysis: The 72 completed daily goals checklists from observed rounds were analyzed using mixed methods. (3) Interviews: With 56 clinicians, we conducted semistructured individual and focus-group interviews, analyzing transcripts using a qualitative descriptive approach and content analysis. Triangulation was achieved by a multidisciplinary investigative team using two research methods and three data sources., Setting: Fifteen bed closed ICU in a tertiary care, university-affiliated hospital., Patients: Medical-surgical ICU patients., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Field observations: The daily goals checklist was completed for 93% of observed rounds, largely by residents (86%). The champion of the verbal review was commonly a resident (83%) or medical student (9%). Document analysis: Domains with high completion rates included ventilation, sedation, central venous access, nutrition, and various prophylactic interventions. Interviews: The daily goals checklist enhanced communication, patient care, and education. Nurses, physicians, and pharmacists endorsed its enhancement of interdisciplinary communication. It facilitated a structured, thorough, and individualized approach to patient care. The daily goals checklist helped to identify new patient care issues and sparked management discussions, especially for sedation, weaning, and medications. Residents were prominent users, finding served as a multipurpose teaching tool., Conclusions: The daily goals checklist was perceived to improve the management of critically ill patients by creating a systematic, comprehensive approach to patient care and by setting individualized daily goals. Reportedly improving interprofessional communication and practice, the daily goals checklist also enhanced patient safety and daily progress, encouraging momentum in recovery from critical illness. Daily goals checklist review prompted teaching opportunities for multidisciplinary learners on morning rounds.