Search

Objective: In critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation, daily interruption of sedative infusions decreases duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit length of stay. Whether this sedation strategy reduces the incidence of complications commonly associated with critical illness is not known.Design: Blinded, retrospective chart review.Setting: University-based hospital in Chicago, IL.Patients: One hundred twenty-eight patients receiving mechanical ventilation and continuous infusions of sedative drugs in a medical intensive care unit.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: We performed a blinded, retrospective evaluation of the database from our previous trial of 128 patients randomized to daily interruption of sedative infusions vs. sedation as directed by the medical intensive care unit team without this strategy. Seven distinct complications associated with mechanical ventilation and critical illness were identified: a) ventilator-associated pneumonia; b) upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage; c) bacteremia; d) barotrauma; e) venous thromboembolic disease; and f) cholestasis or g) sinusitis requiring surgical intervention. The incidence of complications was evaluated for each patient's hospital course. One hundred twenty-six of 128 charts were available for review. Patients undergoing daily interruption of sedative infusions experienced 13 complications (2.8%) vs. 26 (6.2%) in those subjected to conventional sedation techniques (p =.04).Conclusions: Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation reduces intensive care unit length of stay and, in turn, decreases the incidence of complications of critical illness associated with prolonged intubation and mechanical ventilation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delirium is common during critical illness and is associated with long-term cognitive impairment and disability. Antipsychotics are frequently used to treat delirium, but their effects on long-term outcomes are unknown. We aimed to investigate the effects of antipsychotic treatment of delirious, critically ill patients on long-term cognitive, functional, psychological, and quality-of-life outcomes., Methods: This prespecified, long-term follow-up to the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 MIND-USA Study was conducted in 16 hospitals throughout the USA. Adults (aged ≥18 years) who had been admitted to an intensive care unit with respiratory failure or septic or cardiogenic shock were eligible for inclusion in the study if they had delirium. Participants were randomly assigned-using a computer-generated, permuted-block randomisation scheme with stratification by trial site and age-in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive intravenous placebo, haloperidol, or ziprasidone for up to 14 days. Investigators and participants were masked to treatment group assignment. 3 months and 12 months after randomisation, we assessed survivors' cognitive, functional, psychological, quality-of-life, and employment outcomes using validated telephone-administered tests and questionnaires. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01211522, and is complete., Findings: Between Dec 7, 2011, and Aug 12, 2017, we screened 20 914 individuals, of whom 566 were eligible and consented or had consent provided to participate. Of these 566 patients, 184 were assigned to the placebo group, 192 to the haloperidol group, and 190 to the ziprasidone group. 1-year survival and follow-up rates were similar between groups. Cognitive impairment was common in all three treatment groups, with a third of survivors impaired at both 3-month and 12-month follow-up in all groups. More than half of the surveyed survivors in each group had cognitive or physical limitations (or both) that precluded employment at both 3-month and 12-month follow-up. At both 3 months and 12 months, neither haloperidol (adjusted odds ratio 1·22 [95% CI 0·73-2.04] at 3 months and 1·12 [0·60-2·11] at 12 months) nor ziprasidone (1·07 [0·59-1·96] at 3 months and 0·94 [0·62-1·44] at 12 months) significantly altered cognitive outcomes, as measured by the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status T score, compared with placebo. We also found no evidence that functional, psychological, quality-of-life, or employment outcomes improved with haloperidol or ziprasidone compared with placebo., Interpretation: In delirious, critically ill patients, neither haloperidol nor ziprasidone had a significant effect on cognitive, functional, psychological, or quality-of-life outcomes among survivors. Our findings, along with insufficient evidence of short-term benefit and frequent inappropriate continuation of antipsychotics at hospital discharge, indicate that antipsychotics should not be used routinely to treat delirium in critically ill adults., Funding: National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Veterans Affairs., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The following declarations of interest are reported outside of the submitted work. MFM reports grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the US Department of Veterans Affairs. LMB reports grants from the NIH and the American Association of Critical Care Nurses. MNG reports grants from the NIH, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; consulting fees for a role as scientific advisor for Endpoint Health; honoraria for grand rounds presentation at Yale University (New Haven, CT, USA); travel support from the American Thoracic Society executive committee; and participation on the data safety monitoring board for a trial on monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19, funded by Regeneron (NCT04452318). AM reports consulting fees from Zoll, Eli Lilly, LivaNova, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals; and a philanthropic contribution from ResMed to the University of California San Diego (La Jolla, CA, USA). BAK reports grants from the NIH, payment for expert testimony for a medicolegal case in the state of Indiana (USA), payment for participation on a data safety monitoring board for the PANDORA trial, and a leadership role as president of the American Delirium Society. SSC reports grants from the NIH and direct payments for participation on the data safety monitoring board of an NIH-funded study unrelated to delirium. CLH reports grants from the NIH. PR reports grants from the NIH and the US Department of Defense, payment and travel support for a continuing medical education event at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and previous leadership of the Association of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs and Society of Academic Associations of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine. BTP reports leadership as co-chair of the Society of Critical Care Medicine ICU Liberation Committee. PPP reports grants from the NIH. NEB reports grants from the NIH and travel support for the Society of Intensive Care Medicine Singapore annual meeting. CGH reports consulting fees for Sedana Medical. MBP reports grants from CSL Behring, the NIH, and the US Department of Defense; royalties for serving as an associate editor with Elsevier on a surgical textbook; travel support for continuing medical education events with the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, Society of University Surgeons, and American College of Surgeons; a patent for image-derived prognostic models unrelated to this work; participation on a data safety monitoring board for Liberate Medical; and leadership as treasurer for the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. JLS reports honoria for presentations for the Society of Critical Care Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians, the Chilean Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy; travel support for meetings with the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the Saudi Society of Clinical Pharmacy, and the Chilean Society of Critical Care Medicine; and leadership on committees with the Society of Critical Care Medicine. EWE reports grant support from the NIH and the US Department of Veterans Affairs, honoraria for continuing medical education lectures sponsored by Pfizer, and study support (investigational drug provision, no direct payments) from Eli Lilly. TDG reports grants from the NIH, research funding from Ceribell, and personal fees from Haisco Pharmaceutical and Lungpacer Medical. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Survivors of critical illness are at risk for post-intensive care syndrome (PICS, comprised of physical dysfunction, cognitive impairment, and neuropsychiatric disorders including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress). Their family members and caregivers are at risk for PICS-F (PICS-family, comprised of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress). PICS and PICS-F are increasingly recognized in critical care; however, the awareness among primary providers of the domains and the terms of PICS/PICS-F is unknown. Objectives: To determine current practice patterns and knowledge among primary care physicians in regards to patients recovering from critical illness; to determine barriers to care of post-critically ill patients. Methods: A paper and electronic survey were developed and randomly distributed to a subset of North Carolina primary care physicians. Survey questions consisted of the following domains: demographics, current practice, barriers to providing care, knowledge of common issues/complications following critical illness, and interest in changing care for survivors of critical illness. Results: One hundred and ninety-six surveys were delivered and 77 completed surveys (39% response rate) were analyzed. Respondents confirmed significant barriers to care of post-critically ill patients including lack of awareness of PICS/PICS-F terminology, insufficient time to spend with patients, and inadequate education of patients/families about recovery after critical illness. Fifty-seven percent of respondents thought a specialized transitional post-ICU clinic would be helpful. Sixty-two percent reported feeling comfortable caring for patients after a critical illness and 75% felt they were aware of common problems encountered after critical illness. However, 84% also thought more education about PICS/PICS-F would be helpful as would a list of common problems seen after critical illness (91%). Conclusions: Significant gaps and barriers to providing optimal post-ICU care by PCPs exist. Providers identified time constraints and educational gaps as domains needing attention. Dedicated post-ICU clinics might provide a bridge to transition care post-critical illness back to primary care providers.

Rationale: Small trials and professional recommendations support mobilization interventions to improve recovery among critically ill patients, but their real-world effectiveness is unknown. Objective: To evaluate a low-cost, multifaceted mobilization intervention. Methods: We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial across 12 ICUs with diverse case mixes. The primary and secondary samples included patients mechanically ventilated for ⩾48 hours who were ambulatory before admission, and all patients with ICU stays ⩾48 hours, respectively. The mobilization intervention included 1 ) designation and posting of daily mobilization goals; 2 ) interprofessional closed-loop communication coordinated by each ICU's facilitator; and 3 ) performance feedback. Measurements and Main Results: From March 4, 2019 through March 15, 2020, 848 and 1,069 patients were enrolled in the usual care and intervention phases in the primary sample, respectively. The intervention did not increase the primary outcome, patient's maximal Intensive Care Mobility Scale (range, 0-10) score within 48 hours before ICU discharge (estimated mean difference, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, -0.31 to 0.63; P  = 0.51). More patients in the intervention (37.2%) than usual care (30.7%) groups achieved the prespecified secondary outcome of ability to stand before ICU discharge (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 2.15; P  = 0.04). Similar results were observed among the 7,115 patients in the secondary sample. The percentage of days on which patients received physical therapy mediated 90.1% of the intervention effect on standing. ICU mortality (31.5% vs. 29.0%), falls (0.7% vs. 0.4%), and unplanned extubations (2.0% vs. 1.8%) were similar between groups (all P  > 0.3). Conclusions: A low-cost, multifaceted mobilization intervention did not improve overall mobility but improved patients' odds of standing and was safe. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03863470).

Background: Spontaneous awakening trials (SATs), spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs), delirium assessment/management, early mobility have been termed the ABCDE bundle. The ABCDE bundle has been proven to improve patient outcomes. However, there is often a long gap in dissemination and implementation of evidence-based medicine., Objectives: To determine the prevalent implementation of and determinants for ABCDE protocol adoption in Pennsylvania., Methods: We developed a survey of ABCDE bundle protocols. We surveyed factors around implementation including written protocol presence, standardized assessments to guide protocols, timing of creation of protocols, and estimated adherence to protocols. We also collected data on factors that might be determinants for protocol adoption including ICU staffing models, hospital and ICU level factors. We validated the survey tool using the Michigan Health and Hospital Association Keystone ICU collaborative. We then administered the validated survey to a leader of the medical ICU or mixed medical-surgical ICU of all Pennsylvania Hospitals. Multivariable logistic and ordinal regression were used to determine associations between ICU staffing models and hospital and ICU level factors with the presence of ABCDE bundle protocols., Results: In the study cohort of Pennsylvania ICUs (n = 144), we had 100 respondents (69% response). The median number of hospital beds among the respondents was 185 (IQR 111-355) with a median of 14 ICU beds (IQR 10-20). 86% reported spontaneous awakening trial protocols, 60% reported spontaneous breathing trial protocols, 43% reported delirium assessment/management protocols, and 27% reported early mobility protocols. Being a medical ICU compared to a mixed medical-surgical ICU (OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.19-10.21, P  = .02) and presence of multidisciplinary rounds (OR 4.97, 95% CI 2.07-11.94, P  < .001) were associated with increasing number of ABCDE bundle protocol components., Conclusions: Variable implementation of ABCDE bundle protocols was present across Pennsylvania. Team communication is important to implementation of these protocols.

Clinical deterioration of hospitalized patients is common and can lead to critical illness and death. Rapid response teams (RRTs) assess and treat high-risk patients with signs of clinical deterioration to prevent further worsening and subsequent adverse outcomes. Whether activation of the RRT early in the course of clinical deterioration impacts outcomes, however, remains unclear. We sought to characterize the relationship between increasing time to RRT activation after physiologic deterioration and short-term patient outcomes., Design: Retrospective multicenter cohort study., Setting: Three academic hospitals in Pennsylvania., Patients: We included the RRT activation of a hospitalization for non-ICU inpatients greater than or equal to 18 years old., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: The primary exposure was time to RRT activation after physiologic deterioration. We selected four Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage (CART) score thresholds a priori from which to measure time to RRT activation (CART score ≥ 12, ≥ 16, ≥ 20, and ≥ 24). The primary outcome was 7-day mortality-death or discharge to hospice care within 7 days of RRT activation. For each CART threshold, we modeled the association of time to RRT activation duration with 7-day mortality using multivariable fractional polynomial regression. Increased time from clinical decompensation to RRT activation was associated with higher risk of 7-day mortality. This relationship was nonlinear, with odds of mortality increasing rapidly as time to RRT activation increased from 0 to 4 hours and then plateauing. This pattern was observed across several thresholds of physiologic derangement., Conclusions: Increasing time to RRT activation was associated in a nonlinear fashion with increased 7-day mortality. This relationship appeared most marked when using a CART score greater than 20 threshold from which to measure time to RRT activation. We suggest that these empirical findings could be used to inform RRT delay definitions in further studies to determine the clinical impact of interventions focused on timely RRT activation., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Objectives: Physiological decompensation of hospitalized patients is common and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Research surrounding patient decompensation has been hampered by the absence of a robust definition of decompensation and lack of standardized clinical criteria with which to identify patients who have decompensated. We aimed to: 1) develop a consensus definition of physiological decompensation and 2) to develop clinical criteria to identify patients who have decompensated., Design: We utilized a three-phase, modified electronic Delphi (eDelphi) process, followed by a discussion round to generate consensus on the definition of physiological decompensation and on criteria to identify decompensation. We then validated the criteria using a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania., Setting: Quaternary academic medical center., Patients: Adult patients admitted to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania who had triggered a rapid response team (RRT) response between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Sixty-nine experts participated in the eDelphi. Participation was high across the three survey rounds (first round: 93%, second round: 94%, and third round: 98%). The expert panel arrived at a consensus definition of physiological decompensation, "An acute worsening of a patient's clinical status that poses a substantial increase to an individual's short-term risk of death or serious harm." Consensus was also reached on criteria for physiological decompensation. Invasive mechanical ventilation, severe hypoxemia, and use of vasopressor or inotrope medication were bundled as criteria for our novel decompensation metric: the adult inpatient decompensation event (AIDE). Patients who met greater than one AIDE criteria within 24 hours of an RRT call had increased adjusted odds of 7-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.1 [95% CI, 2.5-6.7]) and intensive care unit transfer (aOR, 20.6 [95% CI, 14.2-30.0])., Conclusions: Through the eDelphi process, we have reached a consensus definition of physiological decompensation and proposed clinical criteria with which to identify patients who have decompensated using data easily available from the electronic medical record, the AIDE criteria., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Background: Although malpractice litigation is common in the United States, the risk of a malpractice claim for procedures performed by internal medical practitioners is unknown. This study determined the frequency of malpractice claims related to procedures in a large department of medicine at an academic medical center over a five-year period., Methods: Researchers retrospectively reviewed all malpractice claims and procedures performed by internal medicine practitioners of all specialties between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2019, in a department of medicine at a large academic medical center. A list of all procedures and Current Procedural Terminology codes performed by internal medicine practitioners was compiled. Active procedure-related malpractice claims and the total number of procedures performed during the study period were counted., Results: During the study period, 353,661 procedures were performed by internal medicine practitioners. During the same period, 76 active malpractice claims were identified, of which only 13 (17.1%) were procedure-related. For 2 different malpractice claims, a single patient had 2 procedures; thus 13 total claims related to the performance of 15 procedures. The proportion of procedure-related claims per total number of procedures performed was 0.37 claims/10,000 cases. The frequency of procedure-related malpractice claims per number of procedures performed ranged from 1 in 38 for pulmonary artery thrombolytic therapy to 1 in 137,325 for colonoscopy., Conclusion: Procedure-related malpractice claims against internal medicine practitioners at a large academic medical center over a five-year period were infrequent despite significant procedural volume. Contextualizing procedure-related malpractice claims in terms of procedure-specific volume reframes the reporting of malpractice risk., (Copyright © 2021 The Joint Commission. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 2019, a 42-year-old African man who works as an Ebola virus disease (EVD) researcher traveled from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), near an ongoing EVD epidemic, to Philadelphia and presented to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Emergency Department with altered mental status, vomiting, diarrhea, and fever. He was classified as a "wet" person under investigation for EVD, and his arrival activated our hospital emergency management command center and bioresponse teams. He was found to be in septic shock with multisystem organ dysfunction, including circulatory dysfunction, encephalopathy, metabolic lactic acidosis, acute kidney injury, acute liver injury, and diffuse intravascular coagulation. Critical care was delivered within high-risk pathogen isolation in the ED and in our Special Treatment Unit until a diagnosis of severe cerebral malaria was confirmed and EVD was definitively excluded.This report discusses our experience activating a longitudinal preparedness program designed for rare, resource-intensive events at hospitals physically remote from any active epidemic but serving a high-volume international air travel port-of-entry.

Aim: Determine changes in rapid response team (RRT) activations and describe institutional adaptations made during a surge in hospitalizations for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Methods: Using prospectively collected data, we compared characteristics of RRT calls at our academic hospital from March 7 through May 31, 2020 (COVID-19 era) versus those from January 1 through March 6, 2020 (pre-COVID-19 era). We used negative binomial regression to test differences in RRT activation rates normalized to floor (non-ICU) inpatient census between pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 eras, including the sub-era of rapid COVID-19 census surge and plateau (March 28 through May 2, 2020)., Results: RRT activations for respiratory distress rose substantially during the rapid COVID-19 surge and plateau (2.38 (95% CI 1.39-3.36) activations per 1000 floor patient-days v. 1.27 (0.82-1.71) during the pre-COVID-19 era; p = 0.02); all-cause RRT rates were not significantly different (5.40 (95% CI 3.94-6.85) v. 4.83 (3.86-5.80) activations per 1000 floor patient-days, respectively; p = 0.52). Throughout the COVID-19 era, respiratory distress accounted for a higher percentage of RRT activations in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 patients (57% vs. 28%, respectively; p = 0.001). During the surge, we adapted RRT guidelines to reduce in-room personnel and standardize personal protective equipment based on COVID-19 status and risk to providers, created decision-support pathways for respiratory emergencies that accounted for COVID-19 status uncertainty, and expanded critical care consultative support to floor teams., Conclusion: Increased frequency and complexity of RRT activations for respiratory distress during the COVID-19 surge prompted the creation of clinical tools and strategies that could be applied to other hospitals., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to surge in the United States and globally., Objective: To describe the epidemiology of COVID-19-related critical illness, including trends in outcomes and care delivery., Design: Single-health system, multihospital retrospective cohort study., Setting: 5 hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Health System., Patients: Adults with COVID-19-related critical illness who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure or shock during the initial surge of the pandemic., Measurements: The primary exposure for outcomes and care delivery trend analyses was longitudinal time during the pandemic. The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death at any time, receipt of mechanical ventilation (MV), and readmissions., Results: Among 468 patients with COVID-19-related critical illness, 319 (68.2%) were treated with MV and 121 (25.9%) with vasopressors. Outcomes were notable for an all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality rate of 29.9%, a median ICU stay of 8 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 17 days), a median hospital stay of 13 days (IQR, 7 to 25 days), and an all-cause 30-day readmission rate (among nonhospice survivors) of 10.8%. Mortality decreased over time, from 43.5% (95% CI, 31.3% to 53.8%) to 19.2% (CI, 11.6% to 26.7%) between the first and last 15-day periods in the core adjusted model, whereas patient acuity and other factors did not change., Limitations: Single-health system study; use of, or highly dynamic trends in, other clinical interventions were not evaluated, nor were complications., Conclusion: Among patients with COVID-19-related critical illness admitted to ICUs of a learning health system in the United States, mortality seemed to decrease over time despite stable patient characteristics. Further studies are necessary to confirm this result and to investigate causal mechanisms., Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Objective: To assess clinician perceptions of a machine learning-based early warning system to predict severe sepsis and septic shock (Early Warning System 2.0)., Design: Prospective observational study., Setting: Tertiary teaching hospital in Philadelphia, PA., Patients: Non-ICU admissions November-December 2016., Interventions: During a 6-week study period conducted 5 months after Early Warning System 2.0 alert implementation, nurses and providers were surveyed twice about their perceptions of the alert's helpfulness and impact on care, first within 6 hours of the alert, and again 48 hours after the alert., Measurements and Main Results: For the 362 alerts triggered, 180 nurses (50% response rate) and 107 providers (30% response rate) completed the first survey. Of these, 43 nurses (24% response rate) and 44 providers (41% response rate) completed the second survey. Few (24% nurses, 13% providers) identified new clinical findings after responding to the alert. Perceptions of the presence of sepsis at the time of alert were discrepant between nurses (13%) and providers (40%). The majority of clinicians reported no change in perception of the patient's risk for sepsis (55% nurses, 62% providers). A third of nurses (30%) but few providers (9%) reported the alert changed management. Almost half of nurses (42%) but less than a fifth of providers (16%) found the alert helpful at 6 hours., Conclusions: In general, clinical perceptions of Early Warning System 2.0 were poor. Nurses and providers differed in their perceptions of sepsis and alert benefits. These findings highlight the challenges of achieving acceptance of predictive and machine learning-based sepsis alerts.

Objectives: Develop and implement a machine learning algorithm to predict severe sepsis and septic shock and evaluate the impact on clinical practice and patient outcomes., Design: Retrospective cohort for algorithm derivation and validation, pre-post impact evaluation., Setting: Tertiary teaching hospital system in Philadelphia, PA., Patients: All non-ICU admissions; algorithm derivation July 2011 to June 2014 (n = 162,212); algorithm validation October to December 2015 (n = 10,448); silent versus alert comparison January 2016 to February 2017 (silent n = 22,280; alert n = 32,184)., Interventions: A random-forest classifier, derived and validated using electronic health record data, was deployed both silently and later with an alert to notify clinical teams of sepsis prediction., Measurement and Main Result: Patients identified for training the algorithm were required to have International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition codes for severe sepsis or septic shock and a positive blood culture during their hospital encounter with either a lactate greater than 2.2 mmol/L or a systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg. The algorithm demonstrated a sensitivity of 26% and specificity of 98%, with a positive predictive value of 29% and positive likelihood ratio of 13. The alert resulted in a small statistically significant increase in lactate testing and IV fluid administration. There was no significant difference in mortality, discharge disposition, or transfer to ICU, although there was a reduction in time-to-ICU transfer., Conclusions: Our machine learning algorithm can predict, with low sensitivity but high specificity, the impending occurrence of severe sepsis and septic shock. Algorithm-generated predictive alerts modestly impacted clinical measures. Next steps include describing clinical perception of this tool and optimizing algorithm design and delivery.

Sedation minimization and ventilator liberation protocols improve outcomes but are challenging to implement. We sought to demonstrate proof-of-concept and impact of an electronic application promoting sedation minimization and ventilator liberation., Design: Multi-ICU proof-of-concept study and a single ICU before-after study., Setting: University hospital ICUs., Patients: Adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation., Interventions: An automated application consisting of 1) a web-based dashboard with real-time data on spontaneous breathing trial readiness, sedation depth, sedative infusions, and nudges to wean sedation and ventilatory support and 2) text-message alerts once patients met criteria for a spontaneous breathing trial and spontaneous awakening trial. Pre-intervention, sedation minimization, and ventilator liberation were reviewed daily during a multidisciplinary huddle. Post-intervention, the dashboard was used during the multidisciplinary huddle, throughout the day by respiratory therapists, and text alerts were sent to bedside providers., Measurements and Main Results: We enrolled 115 subjects in the proof-of-concept study. Spontaneous breathing trial alerts were accurate (98.3%), usually sent while patients were receiving mandatory ventilation (88.5%), and 61.9% of patients received concurrent spontaneous awakening trial alerts. We enrolled 457 subjects in the before-after study, 221 pre-intervention and 236 post-intervention. After implementation, patients were 28% more likely to be extubated (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01-1.63; p = 0.042) and 31% more likely to be discharged from the ICU (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03-1.67; p = 0.027) at any time point. After implementation, the median duration of mechanical ventilation was 2.20 days (95% CI, 0.09-4.31 d; p = 0.042) shorter and the median ICU length of stay was 2.65 days (95% CI, 0.13-5.16 d; p = 0.040) shorter, compared with the expected durations without the application., Conclusions: Implementation of an electronic dashboard and alert system promoting sedation minimization and ventilator liberation was associated with reductions in the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay., Competing Interests: Dr. Anderson’s institution received grant support funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) (HL140482)/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Thoracic Society Foundation, and he received funding from the NIH/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (Loan Repayment Grant). Drs. Anderson and Christie (HL115354) received support for article research from the NIH. Dr. Christie’s institution received funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Schweickert received funding from Arjo and the American College of Physicians. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Objectives: To compare sleep, work hours, and behavioral alertness in faculty and fellows during a randomized trial of nighttime in-hospital intensivist staffing compared with a standard daytime intensivist model., Design: Prospective observational study., Setting: Medical ICU of a tertiary care academic medical center during a randomized controlled trial of in-hospital nighttime intensivist staffing., Patients: Twenty faculty and 13 fellows assigned to rotations in the medical ICU during 2012., Interventions: As part of the parent study, there was weekly randomization of staffing model, stratified by 2-week faculty rotation. During the standard staffing model, there were in-hospital residents, with a fellow and faculty member available at nighttime by phone. In the intervention, there were in-hospital residents with an in-hospital nighttime intensivist. Fellows and faculty completed diaries detailing their sleep, work, and well-being; wore actigraphs; and performed psychomotor vigilance testing daily., Measurements and Main Results: Daily sleep time (mean hours [SD]) was increased for fellows and faculty in the intervention versus control (6.7 [0.3] vs 6.0 [0.2]; p < 0.001 and 6.7 [0.1] vs 6.4 [0.2]; p < 0.001, respectively). In-hospital work duration did not differ between the models for fellows or faculty. Total hours of work done at home was different for both fellows and faculty (0.1 [< 0.1] intervention vs 1.0 [0.1] control; p < 0.001 and 0.2 [< 0.1] intervention vs 0.6 [0.1] control; p < 0.001, respectively). Psychomotor vigilance testing did not demonstrate any differences. Measures of well-being including physical exhaustion and alertness were improved in faculty and fellows in the intervention staffing model., Conclusions: Although no differences were measured in patient outcomes between the two staffing models, in-hospital nighttime intensivist staffing was associated with small increases in total sleep duration for faculty and fellows, reductions in total work hours for fellows only, and improvements in subjective well-being for both groups. Staffing models should consider how work duration, sleep, and well-being may impact burnout and sustainability.

The ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment) improves intensive care unit patient-centered outcomes and promotes interprofessional teamwork and collaboration. The Society of Critical Care Medicine recently completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, multicenter, national quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies to promote effective adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this article is to describe 8 of the most frequently asked questions during the Collaborative and to provide practical advice from leading experts to other institutions implementing the ABCDEF bundle., (©2019 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Although growing evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of the ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment), intensive care unit providers often struggle with how to reliably and consistently incorporate this interprofessional, evidence-based intervention into everyday clinical practice. Recently, the Society of Critical Care Medicine completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, nationwide, multicenter quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies and tracked key performance metrics to overcome barriers to ABCDEF bundle adoption. The purpose of this article is to discuss some of the most challenging implementation issues that Collaborative teams experienced, and to provide some practical advice from leading experts on ways to overcome these barriers., (©2019 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Objective: Decades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care., Design: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative., Setting: 68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period., Patients: 15,226 adults with at least one ICU day., Interventions: We defined ABCDEF bundle performance (our main exposure) in two ways: 1) complete performance (patient received every eligible bundle element on any given day) and 2) proportional performance (percentage of eligible bundle elements performed on any given day). We explored the association between complete and proportional ABCDEF bundle performance and three sets of outcomes: patient-related (mortality, ICU and hospital discharge), symptom-related (mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium, pain, restraint use), and system-related (ICU readmission, discharge destination). All models were adjusted for a minimum of 18 a priori determined potential confounders., Measurements and Results: Complete ABCDEF bundle performance was associated with lower likelihood of seven outcomes: hospital death within 7 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.17-0.62), next-day mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.28; CI, 0.22-0.36), coma (AOR, 0.35; CI, 0.22-0.56), delirium (AOR, 0.60; CI, 0.49-0.72), physical restraint use (AOR, 0.37; CI, 0.30-0.46), ICU readmission (AOR, 0.54; CI, 0.37-0.79), and discharge to a facility other than home (AOR, 0.64; CI, 0.51-0.80). There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001)., Conclusions: ABCDEF bundle performance showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes including survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma, delirium, restraint-free care, ICU readmissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition.

Background: There are conflicting data on the effects of antipsychotic medications on delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium to receive intravenous boluses of haloperidol (maximum dose, 20 mg daily), ziprasidone (maximum dose, 40 mg daily), or placebo. The volume and dose of a trial drug or placebo was halved or doubled at 12-hour intervals on the basis of the presence or absence of delirium, as detected with the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, and of side effects of the intervention. The primary end point was the number of days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points included 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, and time to ICU and hospital discharge. Safety end points included extrapyramidal symptoms and excessive sedation., Results: Written informed consent was obtained from 1183 patients or their authorized representatives. Delirium developed in 566 patients (48%), of whom 89% had hypoactive delirium and 11% had hyperactive delirium. Of the 566 patients, 184 were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 192 to receive haloperidol, and 190 to receive ziprasidone. The median duration of exposure to a trial drug or placebo was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7). The median number of days alive without delirium or coma was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.9) in the placebo group, 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.6) in the haloperidol group, and 8.7 (95% CI, 5.9 to 10.0) in the ziprasidone group (P=0.26 for overall effect across trial groups). The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point (odds ratios, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.48], respectively). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to the secondary end points or the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms., Conclusions: The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, in patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium in the ICU did not significantly alter the duration of delirium. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the VA Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center; MIND-USA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01211522 .).

Purpose: The objective of this study is to describe the relationship between two quantitative muscle ultrasound measures, the rectus femoris cross-sectional area (RF-CSA) and quadriceps muscle thickness, with volitional measures of strength and function in critically ill patients with sepsis., Materials and Methods: We performed a prospective study of patients admitted to a medical ICU with sepsis and shock or respiratory failure. We examined the association of two ultrasound measurements - the RF-CSA and quadriceps muscle thickness - with strength and function at day 7. Strength was determined using the Medical Research Council Score and function using Physical Function in the ICU Test, scored., Results: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled; 19 patients had outcome testing performed. Over 7days, RF-CSA and thickness decreased by an average of 23.2% and 17.9%, respectively. The rate of change per day of RF-CSA displayed a moderate correlation with strength (ρ 0.51, p-value 0.03) on day 7. Baseline and day 7 RF-CSA did not show a significant correlation with either outcome. Quadriceps muscle thickness did not significantly correlate with either outcome., Conclusions: Muscle atrophy as detected by the rate of change in RF-CSA moderately correlated with strength one week after sepsis admission., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) often experience pain, oversedation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, delirium, and weakness. These conditions are important in that they often lead to protracted physical, neurocognitive, and mental health sequelae now termed postintensive care syndrome. Changing current ICU practice will not only require the adoption of evidence-based interventions but the development of effective and reliable teams to support these new practices., Objectives: To build on the success of bundled care and bridge an ongoing evidence-practice gap, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) recently launched the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative. The Collaborative aimed to foster the bedside application of the SCCM's Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this paper is to describe the history of the Collaborative, the evidence-based implementation strategies used to foster change and teamwork, and the performance and outcome metrics used to monitor progress., Methods: Collaborative participants were required to attend four in-person meetings, monthly colearning calls, database training sessions, an e-Community listserv, and select in-person site visits. Teams submitted patient-level data and completed pre- and postimplementation questionnaires focused on the assessment of teamwork and collaboration, work environment, and overall ICU care. Faculty shared the evidence used to derive each bundle element as well as team-based implementation strategies for improvement and sustainment., Results: Retention in the Collaborative was high, with 67 of 69 adult and eight of nine pediatric ICUs fully completing the program. Baseline and prospective data were collected on over 17,000 critically ill patients. A variety of evidence-based professional behavioral change interventions and novel implementation techniques were utilized and shared among Collaborative members., Linking Evidence to Action: Hospitals and health systems can use the Collaborative structure, strategies, and tools described in this paper to help successfully implement the ABCDEF bundle in their ICUs., (© 2018 Sigma Theta Tau International.)

Background: Interventions that lead to earlier liberation from mechanical ventilation can improve patient outcomes. This guideline, a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians, provides evidence-based recommendations to optimize liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults., Methods: Two methodologists performed evidence syntheses to summarize available evidence relevant to key questions about liberation from mechanical ventilation. The methodologists appraised the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and summarized the results in evidence profiles. The guideline panel then formulated recommendations after considering the balance of desirable consequences (benefits) versus undesirable consequences (burdens, adverse effects, and costs), the certainty in the evidence, and the feasibility and acceptability of various interventions. Recommendations were rated as strong or conditional., Results: The guideline panel made four conditional recommendations related to rehabilitation protocols, ventilator liberation protocols, and cuff leak tests. The recommendations were for acutely hospitalized adults mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours to receive protocolized rehabilitation directed toward early mobilization, be managed with a ventilator liberation protocol, be assessed with a cuff leak test if they meet extubation criteria but are deemed high risk for postextubation stridor, and be administered systemic steroids for at least 4 hours before extubation if they fail the cuff leak test., Conclusions: The American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians recommendations are intended to support healthcare professionals in their decisions related to liberating critically ill adults from mechanical ventilation.

Background: This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians., Methods: A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The Evidence-to-Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, the confidence in the evidence, the certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, the magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, the resources and costs associated with the intervention, the impact on health disparities, and the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention., Results: Evidence-based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified after full-panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation., Conclusions: The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and Chest.

Background: An update of evidence-based guidelines concerning liberation from mechanical ventilation is needed as new evidence has become available. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) have collaborated to provide recommendations to clinicians concerning liberation from the ventilator., Methods: Comprehensive evidence syntheses, including meta-analyses, were performed to summarize all available evidence relevant to the guideline panel's questions. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and the results were summarized in evidence profiles. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations developed and approved by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation., Results: Recommendations for three population, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO) questions concerning ventilator liberation are presented in this document. The guideline panel considered the balance of desirable (benefits) and undesirable (burdens, adverse effects, costs) consequences, quality of evidence, feasibility, and acceptability of various interventions with respect to the selected questions. Conditional (weak) recommendations were made to use inspiratory pressure augmentation in the initial spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and to use protocols to minimize sedation for patients ventilated for more than 24 h. A strong recommendation was made to use preventive noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for high-risk patients ventilated for more than 24 h immediately after extubation to improve selected outcomes. The recommendations were limited by the quality of the available evidence., Conclusions: The guideline panel provided recommendations for inspiratory pressure augmentation during an initial SBT, protocols minimizing sedation, and preventative NIV, in relation to ventilator liberation., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST)., Methods: A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The Evidence-to-Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, confidence in the evidence, certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, resources and costs associated with the intervention, impact on health disparities, and acceptability and feasibility of the intervention., Results: Evidence-based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified following full panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation., Conclusions: The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and CHEST., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Neuron-specific enolase (NSE) concentrations are prognostic following traumatic and anoxic brain injury and may provide a method to quantify neuronal injury in other populations. We determined the association of admission plasma NSE concentrations with mortality and delirium in critically ill septic patients., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 124 patients from a larger sepsis cohort. Plasma NSE was measured in the earliest blood draw at intensive care unit admission. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and intensive care unit delirium determined by chart review., Results: Sixty-one patients (49.2%) died within 30 days, and delirium developed in 34 (31.5%) of the 108 patients who survived at least 24 hours and were not persistently comatose. Each doubling of the NSE concentration was associated with a 7.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-12.0, P= .003) increased risk of 30-day mortality and a 5.2% (95% CI 3.2-7.2, P< .001) increased risk of delirium. An NSE concentration >12.5 μg/L was independently associated with a 23.3% (95% CI 6.7-39.9, P= .006) increased risk of 30-day mortality and a 29.3% (95% CI 8.8-49.8, P= .005) increased risk of delirium., Conclusions: Higher plasma NSE concentrations were associated with mortality and delirium in critically ill septic patients, suggesting that NSE may have utility as a marker of neuronal injury in sepsis., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Early mobilization (EM) improves outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients. Variation in structure and organizational characteristics may affect implementation of EM practices., Objectives: We queried intensive care unit (ICU) environment and standardized ICU practices to evaluate organizational characteristics that enable EM practice., Methods: We recruited 151 ICUs in France, 150 in Germany, 150 in the United Kingdom, and 500 in the United States by telephone. Survey domains included respondent characteristics, hospital and ICU characteristics, and ICU practices and protocols., Measurements and Main Results: We surveyed 1,484 ICU leaders and received a 64% response rate (951 ICUs). Eighty-eight percent of respondents were in nursing leadership roles; the remainder were physiotherapists. Surveyed ICUs were predominantly mixed medical-surgical units (67%), and 27% were medical ICUs. ICU staffing models differed significantly (P < 0.001 each) by country for high-intensity staffing, nurse/patient ratios, and dedicated physiotherapists. ICU practices differed by country, with EM practices present in 40% of French ICUs, 59% of German ICUs, 52% of U.K. ICUs, and 45% of U.S. ICUs. Formal written EM protocols were present in 24%, 30%, 20%, and 30%, respectively, of those countries' ICUs. In multivariate analysis, EM practice was associated with multidisciplinary rounds (odds ratio [OR], 1.77; P = 0.001), setting daily goals for patients (OR, 1.62; P = 0.02), presence of a dedicated physiotherapist (OR, 2.48; P < 0.001), and the ICU's being located in Germany (reference, United States; OR, 2.84; P < 0.001). EM practice was also associated with higher nurse staffing levels (1:1 nurse/patient ratio as a reference; 1:2 nurse/patient ratio OR, 0.59; P = 0.05; 1:3 nurse/patient ratio OR, 0.33; P = 0.005; 1:4 or less nurse/patient ratio OR, 0.37; P = 0.005). Those responding rarely cited ambulation of mechanically ventilated patients, use of a bedside cycle, or neuromuscular electrical stimulation as part of their EM practice. Physical therapy initiation, barriers to EM practice, and EM equipment were highly variable among respondents., Conclusions: International ICU structure and practice is quite heterogeneous, and several factors (multidisciplinary rounds, setting daily goals for patients, presence of a dedicated physiotherapist, country, and nurse/patient staffing ratio) are significantly associated with the practice of EM. Practice and barriers may be far different based upon staffing structure. To achieve successful implementation, whether through trials or quality improvement, ICU staffing and practice patterns must be taken into account.

Background: Delayed mechanical ventilation monitoring may impede recognition of life-threatening acidemia. Coordination of multidisciplinary processes can be improved by using a checklist and time-out procedure. The study objective was to evaluate process-related outcomes after implementation of a post-intubation checklist and time out., Methods: An observational study of a 24-bed medical ICU in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was conducted from January to December 2011. A random sample of mechanically ventilated adults was selected from the pre-intervention (n = 80) and post-intervention (n = 144) periods. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects with an arterial blood gas (ABG) result within 60 min of mechanical ventilation initiation. Secondary outcomes included rates of respiratory acidosis, moderate-severe acidemia (pH <7.25), checklist initiation, and project sustainability. Chi-square analysis was used to evaluate differences in outcomes between time periods., Results: After the intervention, the proportion of subjects with an ABG result within 60 min increased (56% vs 37%, P = .01), and time to ABG result improved (58 min vs 79 min, P = .004). Adjusting for illness severity, the proportion with an ABG result within 60 min remained significantly higher in the post-intervention period (odds ratio 2.42, 95% CI 1.25-4.68, P = .009). Checklist adherence was higher with ICU intubations than for intubations performed outside the ICU (71% vs 27% checklist initiation rate, P < .001). Transfer from referring institutions (23% checklist initiation rate, P = .006) negatively impacted checklist use. Implementation challenges included frequent stakeholder turnover, undefined process ownership, and lack of real-time performance feedback., Conclusions: A post-intubation checklist and time out improved the timeliness of mechanical ventilation monitoring through more rapid assessment of arterial blood gases. Implementing this peri-intubation procedure may reduce the risks associated with transitioning to full mechanical ventilatory support. Optimal implementation necessitates strategies to surmount organizational and behavioral barriers to change., (Copyright © 2016 by Daedalus Enterprises.)

Objective: Early mobilization improves patient outcomes. However, diffusion of this intervention into standard ICU practice is unknown. Dissemination and implementation efforts may be guided by an environmental scan to detail readiness for early mobilization, current practice, and barriers to early mobilization., Design: A telephone survey., Setting: U.S. ICUs., Subjects: Five hundred randomly selected U.S. ICUs stratified by regional hospital density and hospital size., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: We surveyed 687 ICUs for a 73% response rate (500 ICUs); 99% of respondents were nursing leadership. Fifty-one percent of hospitals reported an academic affiliation. Surveyed ICUs were most often mixed medical/surgical (58%) or medical (22%) with a median of 16 beds (12-24). Thirty-four percent reported presence of a dedicated physical and/or occupational therapy team for the ICU. Overall, 45% of ICUs reported early mobilization practice; two thirds of ICUs with early mobilization practice reported using a written early mobilization protocol. In ICUs with early mobilization practice, 52% began the intervention at admission and 74% enacted early mobilization for both ventilated and nonventilated patients. Early mobilization was provided a median of 6 days per week, twice daily. Factors independently associated with early mobilization protocols include dedicated physical/occupational therapy (odds ratio, 3.34; 95% CI, 2.13-5.22; p<0.01), American Hospital Association region 2 (odds ratio, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.04-10.64; p=0.04), written sedation protocol (odds ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.25-4.45; p<0.01), daily multidisciplinary rounds (odds ratio, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.29-4.15; p<0.01), and written daily goals for patients (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.02-4.64; p=0.04). Commonly cited barriers included equipment, staffing, patient and caregiver safety, and competing priorities. In ICUs without early mobilization adoption, 78% have considered implementation but cite barriers including competing priorities and need for further planning., Conclusions: Diffusion regarding benefits of early mobilization has occurred, but adoption into practice is lagging. Mandates for multidisciplinary rounds and formal sedation protocols may be necessary strategies to increase the likelihood of successful early mobilization implementation. Methods to accurately assess and compare institutional performance via practice audit are needed.

Rationale: We implemented an electronic early warning and response system (EWRS) to improve detection of and response to severe sepsis. Sustainability of such a system requires stakeholder acceptance. We hypothesized that clinicians receiving such alerts perceive them to be useful and effective., Objectives: To survey clinicians after EWRS notification about perceptions of the system., Methods: For a 6-week study period 1 month after EWRS implementation in a large tertiary referral medical center, bedside clinicians, including providers (physicians, advanced practice providers) and registered nurses (RNs), were surveyed confidentially within 2 hours of an alert., Measurements and Main Results: For the 247 alerts that triggered, 127 providers (51%) and 105 RNs (43%) completed the survey. Clinicians perceived most patients as stable before and after the alert. Approximately half (39% providers, 48% RNs) felt the alert provided new information, and about half (44% providers, 56% RNs) reported changes in management as a result of the alert, including closer monitoring and additional interventions. Over half (54% providers, 65% RNs) felt the alert was appropriately timed. Approximately one-third found the alert helpful (33% providers, 40% RNs) and fewer felt it improved patient care (24% providers, 35% RNs)., Conclusions: A minority of responders perceived the EWRS to be useful, likely related to the perception that most patients identified were stable. However, management was altered half the time after an alert. These results suggest further improvements to the system are needed to enhance clinician perception of the system's utility.

The intraosseous (IO) access initiative at an urban university adult level 1 trauma center began from the need for a more expeditious vascular access route to rescue patients in extremis. The goal of this project was a multidisciplinary approach to problem solving to increase access of IO catheters to rescue patients in all care areas. The initiative became a collaborative effort between nursing, physicians, and pharmacy to embark on an acute care endeavor to standardize IO access. This is a descriptive analysis of processes to effectively develop collaborative strategies to navigate hospital systems and successfully implement multilayered initiatives. Administration should empower nurse to advance their practice to include IO for patient rescue. Intraosseous access may expedite resuscitative efforts in patients in extremis who lack venous access or where additional venous access is required for life-saving therapies. Limiting IO dwell time may facilitate timely definitive venous access. Continued education and training by offering IO skill laboratory refreshers and annual e-learning didactic is optimal for maintaining proficiency and knowledge. More research opportunities exist to determine medication safety and efficacy in adult patients in the acute care setting.

Background: Increasing numbers of intensive care units (ICUs) are adopting the practice of nighttime intensivist staffing despite the lack of experimental evidence of its effectiveness., Methods: We conducted a 1-year randomized trial in an academic medical ICU of the effects of nighttime staffing with in-hospital intensivists (intervention) as compared with nighttime coverage by daytime intensivists who were available for consultation by telephone (control). We randomly assigned blocks of 7 consecutive nights to the intervention or the control strategy. The primary outcome was patients' length of stay in the ICU. Secondary outcomes were patients' length of stay in the hospital, ICU and in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, and rates of readmission to the ICU. For length-of-stay outcomes, we performed time-to-event analyses, with data censored at the time of a patient's death or transfer to another ICU., Results: A total of 1598 patients were included in the analyses. The median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III score (in which scores range from 0 to 299, with higher scores indicating more severe illness) was 67 (interquartile range, 47 to 91), the median length of stay in the ICU was 52.7 hours (interquartile range, 29.0 to 113.4), and mortality in the ICU was 18%. Patients who were admitted on intervention days were exposed to nighttime intensivists on more nights than were patients admitted on control days (median, 100% of nights [interquartile range, 67 to 100] vs. median, 0% [interquartile range, 0 to 33]; P<0.001). Nonetheless, intensivist staffing on the night of admission did not have a significant effect on the length of stay in the ICU (rate ratio for the time to ICU discharge, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 1.09; P=0.72), ICU mortality (relative risk, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.28), or any other end point. Analyses restricted to patients who were admitted at night showed similar results, as did sensitivity analyses that used different definitions of exposure and outcome., Conclusions: In an academic medical ICU in the United States, nighttime in-hospital intensivist staffing did not improve patient outcomes. (Funded by University of Pennsylvania Health System and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01434823.).

Objectives: Formal guidelines recommend that therapeutic hypothermia be considered after in-hospital cardiac arrest. The rate of therapeutic hypothermia use after in-hospital cardiac arrest and details about its implementation are unknown. We aimed to determine the use of therapeutic hypothermia for adult in-hospital cardiac arrest, whether use has increased over time, and to identify factors associated with its use., Design: Multicenter, prospective cohort study., Setting: A total of 538 hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation database (2003-2009)., Patients: A total of 67,498 patients who had return of spontaneous circulation after in-hospital cardiac arrest., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was the initiation of therapeutic hypothermia. We measured the proportion of therapeutic hypothermia patients who achieved target temperature (32-34 °C) and were overcooled. Of 67,498 patients, therapeutic hypothermia was initiated in 1,367 patients (2.0%). The target temperature (32-34 °C) was not achieved in 44.3% of therapeutic hypothermia patients within 24 hours and 17.6% were overcooled. The use of therapeutic hypothermia increased from 0.7% in 2003 to 3.3% in 2009 (p < 0.001). We found that younger age (p < 0.001) and occurrence in a non-ICU location (p < 0.001), on a weekday (p = 0.005), and in a teaching hospital (p = 0.001) were associated with an increased likelihood of therapeutic hypothermia being initiated., Conclusions: After in-hospital cardiac arrest, therapeutic hypothermia was used rarely. Once initiated, the target temperature was commonly not achieved. The frequency of use increased over time but remained low. Factors associated with therapeutic hypothermia use included patient age, time and location of occurrence, and type of hospital.

Objectives: Rapid response systems (RRS) evolved to care for deteriorating hospitalized patients outside of the ICU. However, emergent critical care needs occur suddenly and unexpectedly throughout the hospital campus, including areas with non-hospitalized persons. The efficacy of RRS in this population has not yet been described or tested. We hypothesize that non-hospitalized patients accrue minimal benefit from ICU physician participation in the RRS., Design: A retrospective review of all RRS events in non-hospitalized patients for a 28 month period was performed in a large, urban university medical center. Location, patient type and age, activation trigger, interventions performed, duration of event and disposition were recorded. Admission diagnosis and length of stay were also recorded for patients admitted to the hospital., Setting: Academic medical center., Patients: Non-hospitalized persons requiring evaluation by the medical emergency team., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: There were a total of 1778 RRS activations during the study period. 232 (13%) of activations were for non-hospitalized patients. The patient cohort consisted of outpatients, visitors, and staff. Triggers for RRS activation were neurologic change (42%), cardiac (27%), respiratory (16%), and staff concerns (16%). The mean duration of the response was 38 min. The most common interventions performed included administration of oxygen (46%), intravenous fluids (13%) and dextrose (6%). 82% of patients were taken to the emergency department and 32% of the ED cohort were admitted to the hospital., Conclusions: Perceived emergencies in non-hospitalized patients occur commonly but require minimal emergent intervention. Restriction of critical care physician involvement to inpatient deteriorations should be considered when designing a RRS. Future studies are needed to evaluate the utility of non-physician provider led rapid response teams with protocol-driven interventions for similar populations., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Delayed administration of effective antimicrobial therapy increases mortality in patients with septic shock. Empiric antibiotic selection in this setting can be inaccurate. The objective of this study was to determine whether an antibiotic algorithm (AA) tailored to institutional resistance patterns improves the adequacy of antimicrobial therapy., Methods: A retrospective review of our rapid response system database was performed. Patients with possible sepsis with positive microbiological culture results were enrolled. Pathogens identified by culture were used to determine adequacy of antibiotic selection before and after implementation of an AA., Results: A total of 234 patients with septic shock were reviewed (before AA, n = 36; after AA, n = 198). Seventy-two patients had positive cultures and were enrolled (before AA, n = 13; after AA, n = 59). Significantly more patients received adequate coverage after AA implementation (54% vs 86%, P = .02). Before AA, inadequate Gram-negative coverage was the most common reason for failure. Reasons for failure in the after-AA group were nonadherence to the algorithm (n = 5) and multidrug-resistant pathogens (n = 3). The algorithm failed in patients with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (n = 3), multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 1), and Candida albicans (n = 1)., Conclusions: The use of an AA significantly improves the adequacy of empiric antimicrobial therapy., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

As ICU survival continues to improve, clinicians are faced with short- and long-term consequences of critical illness. Deconditioning and weakness have become common problems in survivors of critical illness requiring mechanical ventilation. Recent literature, mostly from a medical population of patients in the ICU, has challenged the patient care model of prolonged bed rest. Instead, the feasibility, safety, and benefits of early mobilization of mechanically ventilated ICU patients have been reported in recent publications. The benefits of early mobilization include reductions in length of stay in the ICU and hospital as well as improvements in strength and functional status. Such benefits can be accomplished with a remarkably acceptable patient safety profile. The importance of interactions between mind and body are highlighted by these studies, with improvements in patient awareness and reductions in ICU delirium being noted. Future research to address the benefits of early mobilization in other patient populations is needed. In addition, the potential for early mobilization to impact long-term outcomes in ICU survivors requires further study.