Search

Few surveys have focused on physician moral distress, burnout, and professional fulfilment. We assessed physician wellness and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic.Cross-sectional survey using four validated instruments.Sixty-two sites in Canada and the United States.Attending physicians (adult, pediatric; intensivist, nonintensivist) who worked in North American ICUs.None.We analysed 431 questionnaires (43.3% response rate) from 25 states and eight provinces. Respondents were predominantly male (229 [55.6%]) and in practice for 11.8 ± 9.8 years. Compared with prepandemic, respondents reported significant intrapandemic increases in days worked/mo, ICU bed occupancy, and self-reported moral distress (240 [56.9%]) and burnout (259 [63.8%]). Of the 10 top-ranked items that incited moral distress, most pertained to regulatory/organizational ( n = 6) or local/institutional ( n = 2) issues or both ( n = 2). Average moral distress (95.6 ± 66.9), professional fulfilment (6.5 ± 2.1), and burnout scores (3.6 ± 2.0) were moderate with 227 physicians (54.6%) meeting burnout criteria. A significant dose-response existed between COVID-19 patient volume and moral distress scores. Physicians who worked more days/mo and more scheduled in-house nightshifts, especially combined with more unscheduled in-house nightshifts, experienced significantly more moral distress. One in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We identified four coping profiles (active/social, avoidant, mixed/ambivalent, infrequent) that were associated with significant differences across all wellness measures.Despite moderate intrapandemic moral distress and burnout, physicians experienced moderate professional fulfilment. However, one in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We highlight potentially modifiable factors at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels to enhance physician wellness.

International audience; BACKGROUND Studies that have evaluated the use of intravenous vitamin C in adults with sepsis who were receiving vasopressor therapy in the intensive care unit (ICU) have shown mixed results with respect to the risk of death and organ dysfunction. METHODS In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned adults who had been in the ICU for no longer than 24 hours, who had proven or suspected infection as the main diagnosis, and who were receiving a vasopressor to receive an infusion of either vitamin C (at a dose of 50 mg per kilogram of body weight) or matched placebo administered every 6 hours for up to 96 hours. The primary outcome was a composite of death or persistent organ dysfunction (defined by the use of vasopressors, invasive mechanical ventilation, or new renal-replacement therapy) on day 28. RESULTS A total of 872 patients underwent randomization (435 to the vitamin C group and 437 to the control group). The primary outcome occurred in 191 of 429 patients (44.5%) in the vitamin C group and in 167 of 434 patients (38.5%) in the control group (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.40; P = 0.01). At 28 days, death had occurred in 152 of 429 patients (35.4%) in the vitamin C group and in 137 of 434 patients (31.6%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.40) and persistent organ dysfunction in 39 of 429 patients (9.1%) and 30 of 434 patients (6.9%), respectively (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.05). Findings were similar in the two groups regarding organ-dysfunction scores, biomarkers, 6-month survival, health-related quality of life, stage 3 acute kidney injury, and hypoglycemic episodes. In the vitamin C group, one patient had a severe hypoglycemic episode and another had a serious anaphylaxis event. CONCLUSIONS In adults with sepsis receiving vasopressor therapy in the ICU, those who received intravenous vitamin C had a higher risk of death or persistent organ dysfunction at 28 days than those who received placebo. (Funded by the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation; LOVIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03680274.).

Rationale The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted non-COVID critical care trials globally as intensive care units (ICUs) prioritized patient care and COVID-specific research. The international randomized controlled trial CYCLE (Critical Care Cycling to Improve Lower Extremity Strength) was forced to halt recruitment at all sites in March 2020, creating immediate challenges. We applied the CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstance) statement as a framework to report the impact of the pandemic on CYCLE and describe our mitigation approaches. Methods On March 23, 2020, the CYCLE Methods Centre distributed a standardized email to determine the number of patients still in-hospital and those requiring imminent 90-day endpoint assessments. We assessed protocol fidelity by documenting attempts to provide the in-hospital randomized intervention (cycling or routine physiotherapy) and collect the primary outcome (physical function 3-days post-ICU discharge) and 90-day outcomes. We advised sites to prioritize data for the study’s primary outcome. We sought feedback on pandemic barriers related to trial procedures. Results Our main Methods Centre mitigation strategies included identifying patients at risk for protocol deviations, communicating early and frequently with sites, developing standardized internal tools focused on high-risk points in the protocol for monitoring patient progress, data entry, and validation, and providing guidance to conduct some research activities remotely. For study sites, our strategies included determining how institutional pandemic research policies applied to CYCLE, communicating with the Methods Centre about capacity to continue any part of the research, and developing contingency plans to ensure the protocol was delivered as intended. From 15 active sites (12 Canada, 2 US, 1 Australia), 5 patients were still receiving the study intervention in ICUs, 6 required primary outcomes, and 17 required 90-day assessments. With these mitigation strategies, we attempted 100% of ICU interventions, 83% of primary outcomes, and 100% of 90-day assessments per our protocol. Conclusions We retained all enrolled patients with minimal missing data using several time-sensitive strategies. Although CONSERVE recommends reporting only major modifications incurred by extenuating circumstances, we suggest that it also provides a helpful framework for reporting mitigation strategies with the goal of improving research transparency and trial management. Trial registration NCT03471247. Registered on March 20, 2018.

Purpose: The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM‑RPG) was to formulate evidence‑based guidance for the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in invasively mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit (ICU).Methods: We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, including use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence, and the Evidence-to-Decision framework to generate recommendations. The guideline panel comprised 28 international panelists, including content experts, ICU clinicians, methodologists, and patient representatives. Through teleconferences and web‑based discussions, the panel provided input on the balance and magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs and resources, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities.Results: The ICM‑RPG panel issued one weak recommendation (suggestion) based on overall moderate certainty of evidence: "In invasively mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients, we suggest using dexmedetomidine over other sedative agents, if the desirable effects including a reduction in delirium are valued over the undesirable effects including an increase in hypotension and bradycardia".Conclusion: This ICM-RPG provides updated evidence-based guidance on the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in mechanically ventilated adults, and outlines uncertainties and research priorities.Keywords: Clinical practice guideline; Dexmedetomidine; ICM-RPG; Sedation.© 2022. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Key Points Question Do clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that report on pharmacologic treatments of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 meet the National Academy of Medicine standards for trustworthiness? Findings In this systematic review of 32 CPGs of predominantly low quality, few reported funding sources or conflicts of interest, included a methodologist, described a search strategy or study selection process, or synthesized evidence. Although 14 CPGs (43.8%) made recommendations or suggestions for or against treatments, they infrequently rated the confidence in the quality of the evidence (6 [18.8%]), described potential benefits and harms (6 [18.8%]), or graded the strength of recommendations (5 [15.6%]). Meaning The findings of this study suggest that few COVID-19 CPGs meet National Academy of Medicine standards for trustworthy guidelines., This systematic review evaluates the quality and trustworthiness of clinical practice guidelines for pharmacologic treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 using the National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards instrument., Importance The COVID-19 pandemic created the need for rapid and urgent guidance for clinicians to manage COVID-19 among patients and prevent transmission. Objective To appraise the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) criteria. Evidence Review A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to December 14, 2020, and a search of related articles to February 28, 2021, that included CPGs developed by societies or by government or nongovernment organizations that reported pharmacologic treatments of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed CPG quality using the 15-item National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) instrument. Findings Thirty-two CPGs were included in the review. Of these, 25 (78.1%) were developed by professional societies and emanated from a single World Health Organization (WHO) region. Overall, the CPGs were of low quality. Only 7 CPGs (21.9%) reported funding sources, and 12 (37.5%) reported conflicts of interest. Only 5 CPGs (15.6%) included a methodologist, described a search strategy or study selection process, or synthesized the evidence. Although 14 CPGs (43.8%) made recommendations or suggestions for or against treatments, they infrequently rated confidence in the quality of the evidence (6 of 32 [18.8%]), described potential benefits and harms (6 of 32 [18.8%]), or graded the strength of the recommendations (5 of 32 [15.6%]). External review, patient or public perspectives, or a process for updating were rare. High-quality CPGs included a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborations involving investigators from 2 or more WHO regions. Conclusions and Relevance In this review, few COVID-19 CPGs met NAM standards for trustworthy guidelines. Approaches that prioritize engagement of a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborators from at least 2 WHO regions may lead to the production of fewer, high-quality CPGs that are poised for updates as new evidence emerges. Trial Registration PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021245239

Background The minimum duration of pulselessness required before organ donation after circulatory determination of death has not been well studied. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study of the incidence and timing of resumption of cardiac electrical and pulsatile activity in adults who died after planned withdrawal of life-sustaining measures in 20 intensive care units in three countries. Patients were intended to be monitored for 30 minutes after determination of death. Clinicians at the bedside reported resumption of cardiac activity prospectively. Continuous blood-pressure and electrocardiographic (ECG) waveforms were recorded and reviewed retrospectively to confirm bedside observations and to determine whether there were additional instances of resumption of cardiac activity. Results A total of 1999 patients were screened, and 631 were included in the study. Clinically reported resumption of cardiac activity, respiratory movement, or both that was confirmed by waveform analysis occurred in 5 patients (1%). Retrospective analysis of ECG and blood-pressure waveforms from 480 patients identified 67 instances (14%) with resumption of cardiac activity after a period of pulselessness, including the 5 reported by bedside clinicians. The longest duration after pulselessness before resumption of cardiac activity was 4 minutes 20 seconds. The last QRS complex coincided with the last arterial pulse in 19% of the patients. Conclusions After withdrawal of life-sustaining measures, transient resumption of at least one cycle of cardiac activity after pulselessness occurred in 14% of patients according to retrospective analysis of waveforms; only 1% of such resumptions were identified at the bedside. These events occurred within 4 minutes 20 seconds after a period of pulselessness. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and others.).

We surveyed Canadian critical care physicians who may care for patients who are potential organ donors to understand their attitudes and knowledge of legislation governing the deceased organ donation system.We used a web-based, self-administered survey that included questions related to opt-out consent and mandatory referral legislation. Potential participants were identified through membership lists of professional societies and manual searches. We designed our survey using standardized methods and administered it in February and March 2018.Fifty percent (263/529) of potential participants completed the questionnaire. A majority (61%; 144/235) supported a change towards an opt-out consent model, and 77% (181/235) stated they believe it would increase donation rates. Asked if opt-out consent would change their practices, 71% (166/235) stated an opt-out model would not change how or if they approach families to discuss donation. Fifty-six percent (139/249) supported mandatory referral laws, while only 42% (93/219) of those working in provinces with mandatory referral correctly stated that such laws exist in their province. Respondents gave variable responses on who should be accountable when patients are not referred, and 16% (40/249) believed no one should be held accountable.While a majority of critical care physicians supported opt-out consent and mandatory referral, many were neutral or against it. Many were unaware of existing laws and had variable opinions on how to ensure accountability. Efforts to increase understanding of how legislative models influence practice are required for any law to achieve its desired effect.RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons étudié les intensivistes canadiens qui prennent soin de patients potentiellement donneurs d’organes afin de comprendre leurs attitudes et connaissances quant aux lois régissant le système de don d’organes de donneurs décédés. MéTHODE: Nous avons utilisé un sondage électronique auto-administré incluant des questions liées au consentement implicite avec option de retrait et à la législation de référence obligatoire. Les participants potentiels ont été identifiés grâce aux listes des sociétés professionnelles et par des recherches manuelles. Nous avons conçu notre sondage à l’aide de méthodes standardisées et l’avons administré en février et mars 2018. RéSULTATS: Cinquante pour cent (263/529) des participants potentiels ont complété le questionnaire. La majorité (61 %; 144/235) était en faveur d’un changement vers un modèle de consentement avec option de retrait, et 77 % (181/235) ont déclaré penser que cela augmenterait les taux de don. Lorsqu’il leur a été demandé si l’option de consentement avec option de retrait modifierait leur pratique, 71 % (166/235) ont affirmé qu’un modèle avec possibilité de retrait ne modifierait pas leur façon ou leur intention d’approcher les familles pour parler de don d’organes. Cinquante-six pour cent (139/249) étaient en faveur de lois concernant la référence obligatoire, alors que seulement 42 % (93/219) des intensivistes travaillant dans des provinces où la référence était obligatoire ont correctement déclaré que de telles lois existaient dans leur province. Les répondants ont donné des réponses variables quant à l’imputabilité lors de la non-référence des patient, et 16 % (40/249) étaient d’avis que personne ne devrait être tenu responsable. CONCLUSION: Alors que la majorité des intensivistes était en faveur du consentement avec option de retrait et de la référence obligatoire, bon nombre n’avaient pas d’avis sur la question ou étaient contre. De nombreux intensivistes ne connaissaient pas bien les lois existantes et avaient des opinions variables sur la façon de garantir l’imputabilité. Des efforts sont nécessaires pour augmenter la compréhension de la manière dont les modèles législatifs influencent la pratique afin qu’une loi, quelle qu’elle soit, ait l’effet désiré.