Search

Objective: To evaluate the impact of direct discharge home (DDH) from ICUs compared with ward transfer on safety outcomes of readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality. Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception until March 28, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized and nonrandomized studies of DDH patients compared with ward transfer were eligible. Data Extraction: We screened and extracted studies independently and in duplicate. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A random-effects meta-analysis model and heterogeneity assessment was performed using pooled data (inverse variance) for propensity-matched and unadjusted cohorts. We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data Synthesis: Of 10,228 citations identified, we included six studies. Of these, three high-quality studies, which enrolled 49,376 patients in propensity-matched cohorts, could be pooled using meta-analysis. For DDH from ICU, compared with ward transfers, there was no difference in the risk of ED visits at 30-day (22.4% vs 22.7%; relative risk [RR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95–1.02; p = 0.39; low certainty); hospital readmissions at 30-day (9.8% vs 9.6%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91–1.15; p = 0.71; very low-to-low certainty); or 90-day mortality (2.8% vs 2.6%; RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95–1.18; p = 0.29; very low-to-low certainty). There were no important differences in the unmatched cohorts or across subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Very low-to-low certainty evidence from observational studies suggests that DDH from ICU may have no difference in safety outcomes compared with ward transfer of selected ICU patients. In the future, this research question could be further examined by randomized control trials to provide higher certainty data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Critical care research in Canada is conducted primarily in academically-affiliated intensive care units with established research infrastructure, including research coordinators (RCs). Recently, efforts have been made to engage community hospital ICUs in research albeit with barriers. Automation or artificial intelligence (AI) could aid the performance of routine research tasks. It is unclear which research study processes might be improved through AI automation. Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Canadian ICU research personnel. The survey contained items characterizing opinions regarding research processes that may be amenable to AI automation. We distributed the questionnaire via email distribution lists of 3 Canadian research societies. Open-ended questions were analyzed using a thematic content analysis approach. Results: A total of 49 survey responses were received (response rate: 8%). Tasks that respondents felt were time-consuming/tedious/tiresome included: screening for potentially eligible patients (74%), inputting data into case report forms (65%), and preparing internal tracking logs (53%). Tasks that respondents felt could be performed by AI automation included: screening for eligible patients (59%), inputting data into case report forms (55%), preparing internal tracking logs (51%), and randomizing patients into studies (45%). Open-ended questions identified enthusiasm for AI automation to improve information accuracy and efficiency while freeing up RCs to perform tasks that require human interaction. This enthusiasm was tempered by the need for proper AI education and oversight. Conclusions: There were balanced supportive (increased efficiency and re-allocation of tasks) and challenges (informational accuracy and oversight) with regards to AI automation in ICU research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia / Journal Canadien d'Anesthésie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: In the new era of decreasing hospital bed availability, there is an increasing rate of direct discharge to home (DDH) from intensive care units (ICUs), despite sparse literature informing this practice. Objectives: To evaluate patient, family, and ICU attending physician satisfaction with planning for DDH from the ICU and intensivists' current DDH practices and perceptions. Methods: Prospective cohort study, using convenience sampling, of adult patients undergoing DDH from an ICU between February 2016 and February 2017 using a modified FS-ICU 24 satisfaction survey completed by patients, family members, and attending physicians at the time of patient discharge to home from the ICU. Results: Seventy-two percent of patients, 37% of family members, and 100% of ICU physicians recruited completed the survey. A majority of patients (89%) and families (78%) were satisfied or very satisfied with DDH. Only 6% of patients and 8% of families were dissatisfied to very dissatisfied with DDH. Conversely, ICU physician satisfaction varied, with only 5% being very comfortable with DDH and the majority (50%) only somewhat comfortable. Twenty percent of staff consultants were uncomfortable to very uncomfortable with the practice of DDH. Thirty-one percent of staff physician respondents felt that patient and family discomfort would be barriers to DDH. Compared to physicians and other allied health professionals, nurses were identified as the most helpful members of the health-care team in preparation for DDH by 98% of patients and 92% of family members. The DDH rates have increased for the past 12 years in our ICUs but declined during the study period (February 2016 to February 2017). Conclusions: Patients and family members are satisfied with the practice of DDH from ICU, although ICU physician satisfaction is more variable. Physician comfort may be improved by data informing which patients may be safely DDH from the ICU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Organ congestion may be a mediator of adverse outcomes in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI). The presence of abnormal venous Doppler waveforms could identify patients with clinically significant organ congestion who may benefit from a decongestive strategy., Methods: This prospective multicenter cohort study enrolled patients with severe AKI defined as Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes stage 2 or higher. Patients were not eligible if they received renal replacement therapy (RRT) for more than 72 hours at the time of screening. Participants underwent serial Doppler ultrasound examinations of the portal, hepatic and intrarenal veins during the week following enrolment. We calculated the venous excess ultrasound (VExUS) score based on these data. The primary outcome studied was major adverse kidney events at 30 days (MAKE30) defined as death, RRT dependence, or a persistent decrease in kidney function., Results: A total of 125 patients were included for whom 291 ultrasound assessments were performed. Severely abnormal venous waveforms were documented in 14.4% of portal vein assessments, 6.5% of intrarenal venous assessments, and 14.4% of hepatic vein assessments. The individual ultrasound markers were not associated with MAKE30. The VExUS score (grade 0-1: reference; grade 2: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 4.03, confidence interval [CI]: 1.81-8.99; grade 3: aHR: 2.70, CI: 1.10-6.65; P  = 0.03), as well as severely abnormal portal, hepatic and intrarenal vein Doppler were each independently associated with mortality., Conclusion: Although not significantly associated with MAKE30, venous Doppler abnormalities suggestive of venous congestion were associated with higher mortality in critically ill patients with severe AKI., (© 2023 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc.)