Gajic, Ognjen

Abstract Background: The Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury (CERTAIN) study is a before-and-after clinical quality improvement study involving 20 countries. Our aim was to describe the challenges and solutions for study implementation across various intensive care units.Methods: After local institutional review board approval, each study center had a setup period before patient data were collected. Each center was required to accomplish 4 stages: baseline data collection, remote simulation training, local implementation, and postimplementation data collection and maintenance of process of care. We measured the time required to complete each study stage and used the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control (DMAIC) framework to identify the challenges encountered during each stage and guide improvement strategies to facilitate implementation of CERTAIN.Results: Between June 2012 and December 2017, 55 centers from 20 countries were recruited to participate. The time to complete each stage at different centers varied significantly. The most common domains in which challenges occurred were 1) leadership support and team building, 2) communication, 3) work environment culture, 4) language barriers, 5) infrastructure and technology, and 6) sustainability. Obstacles in these 6 areas delayed reaching major milestones of the study. Different strategies were deployed to overcome these barriers: engaging leadership for support, using native-speaking clinicians during training sessions, using various communication platforms, providing personal computers to local hospitals, making in-person site visits, offering flexible training time, and supporting local centers’ grant applications. Centers that enrolled during the control phase, compared with those that enrolled earlier, had significantly shorter times and less variation in times for each study stage and for the total study time.Conclusions: By using the DMAIC method, we identified the predominant 6 domains in which challenges occurred during implementation of the global CERTAIN study and developed targeted strategies to overcome the challenges and shorten the duration of the study. The DMAIC method would be useful in improving the efficiency of other large-scale multinational quality improvement projects.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESHigh‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen may provide tailored benefits in patients with preset treatment limitations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC oxygen in patients with do‐not‐intubate (DNI) and/or do‐not‐resuscitate (DNR) orders.METHODSWe conducted a systematic review of interventional and observational studies. A search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, from inception to October 15, 2018.RESULTSWe included six studies evaluating 293 patients. All studies had a high risk of bias. The hospital mortality rates of patients with DNI and/or DNR orders receiving HFNC oxygen were variable and ranged from 40% to 87%. In two before and after studies, the initiation of HFNC oxygen was associated with improved oxygenation and reduced respiratory rates. One comparative study found no difference in dyspnea reduction or morphine doses between patients using HFNC oxygen versus conventional oxygen. No studies evaluated quality of life in survivors or quality of death in nonsurvivors. HFNC was generally well tolerated with few adverse events identified.CONCLUSIONSWhile HFNC oxygen remains a viable treatment option for hospitalized patients who have acute respiratory failure and a DNI and/or DNR order, there is a paucity of high‐quality, comparative, effectiveness data to guide the usage of HFNC oxygen compared with other treatments, such as noninvasive ventilation, conventional oxygen, and palliative opioids.

80 Background: Several previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have attempted to summarize toxicity of Immune Checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, very soon after each one of these reviews has been published, it became outdated. ICIs are currently used in 14 different cancers and data is rapidly evolving from new clinical trials. A living Systematic review, which is defined as a systematic review that is continually updated to incorporate relevant new evidence as it becomes available, is necessary in this situations. Methods: In order to dynamically display content -- including textual data, tables, charts, and graphs – standard data formats and protocols were designed for various components of the systematic reviews carried out by researchers. Given these standardized formats, software was written to interpret this data and output the information in the appropriate format, such as a forest plot or data table. Finally, a dynamic interface that enables user inputs (such as which aspect of the meta-analysis to view) and displays the associated output was designed. The overall living Systematic Review infrastructure includes monthly literature searches, cumulative meta-analysis, and an online reporting platform. Results: We have developed a Living Systematic Review engine that can take in standardized data and reflect this data in an interactive, intuitive manner in the form of text, tables, and plots. This interface can also be manipulated via user input to organize and sort data tables or omit/highlight specific pieces of data. Conclusions: We have initiated the first living systematic review in immune-oncology that will be continuously updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available, and will provide accurate and up to date toxicity estimates to support clinical decision making. The Living Systematic Review interface allows users to easily and intuitively access the most recent available clinical evidence on toxicity of ICIs.

Abstract Rationale No previous studies have examined the role of prehospital vulnerability in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) development and mortality in an acutely ill adult population. Objectives To describe the association between prehospital vulnerability and 1) the development of ARDS, 2) 28-day mortality, and 3) 1-year mortality. Methods This was a longitudinal prospective cohort study nested within the multicenter LIPS-A (Lung Injury Prevention Study-Aspirin) trial. We analyzed 301 participants who completed Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES) at baseline. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression analyses were used to describe the association between vulnerability and short-term outcomes (ARDS and 28-day mortality) and long-term outcomes (1-year mortality), respectively. Results The VES score ranged from 0 to 10 (median [interquartile range], 2.0 [0–6]); 143 (47.5%) fit criteria for prehospital vulnerability (VES ≥ 3). Vulnerability was not significantly associated with ARDS development (10 [7.0%] vulnerable patients developed ARDS as per LIPS-A study criteria vs. 20 [12.7%] without vulnerability; P = 0.10; adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 0.54 [0.24–1.24]; P = 0.15). Nor was vulnerability associated with 28-day mortality (15 [10.5%] vulnerable patients were dead by Day 28 vs. 11 [7.0%] nonvulnerable patients; P = 0.28; adjusted odds ratio [95% CI], 0.95 [0.39–2.26]; P = 0.90). Vulnerability was significantly associated with 1-year mortality in hospital survivors (35 [26.9%] vs. 13 [9.3%]; adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI], 2.20 [1.10–4.37]; P = 0.02). Conclusions In a population of adults recruited for their high risk of ARDS, prehospital vulnerability, measured by VES, was highly prevalent and strongly associated with 1-year mortality.