Holder, Andre L.

OBJECTIVE: A definition of refractory septic shock is necessary to guide diagnosis, management, prognostication, research, and future guidelines for this most severe form of the disease. We sought to achieve consensus on clinical criteria that would be used to define refractory septic shock. DESIGN: Review of literature, expert panel position statements, and Delphi rounds with an international expert group. SETTING: Consensus was defined as having at least 75% of panellists in agreement or disagreement on the three highest or lowest levels of a 7-point Likert scale or based on responses to single- or multiple-choice questions, respectively. SUBJECTS: A panel of multinational, multiprofessional and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (57 invitations and 56 participants). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A five-round Delphi process was conducted for consensus and stability. The steering committee proposed 34 statements, and five of them were rejected by panel experts after round 2. Among 29 statements selected from eight domains, consensus was reached for 13. The panel agreed on the need for a comprehensive consensus set of clinical criteria for refractory septic shock. Markers of organ dysfunction (75%, 2 rounds), tissue perfusion (91.1%, 2 rounds) including lactate (94.6%, 2 rounds) and capillary refill time (76.8%, 2 rounds), assessment of fluid-responsiveness after initial resuscitation (92.9%, 5 rounds), and use of vasoactive drugs at norepinephrine equivalents greater than 0.5 µg/kg/min (75.0%, 3 rounds), were selected as clinical criteria of refractory septic shock. The use of critical care ultrasound (CCUS) (92.9%, 3 rounds) was the single diagnostic modality that reached a consensus-based agreement. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus for 13 criteria to frame the definition of refractory septic shock was reached. Refractory septic shock is characterised by persistently elevated lactate concentrations and or prolonged capillary refill time in patients with septic shock who are fluid unresponsive, require a norepinephrine base equivalent dose greater than 0.5 micrograms per kilogram per minute, and undergo CCUS assessment when mixed shock is suspected.

OBJECTIVES: Current research does not address the existence and impact of structured tele-critical care (TCC) training on the delivery of care in the ICU. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the association between on boarding elements focused on training and clinicians perceptions of delivery of care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Critical Care professionals at four U.S. hospitals, professional meetings and Society of Critical Care Medicine’s International Membership base. Participants were active clinicians who practice in the TCC setting. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 432 participants responded to the survey, 227 met the eligibility criteria (52.5%) and were included in the analysis. Respondents were a multi-professional group of TCC clinicians aged between 35–55 years of age (56.4%). Seventy-four percent of respondents reported having orientation before providing TCC, 46% reported having formal mentorship, and 66% reported formal training on their institutional platform. Provision of orientation before participating in a TCC program was associated with higher ratings of feeling prepared (odds ratio [OR], 3.52; p < 0.001) and feeling accepted as part of the ICU team (OR, 2.21; p = 0.008). Mentorship was associated with feeling more prepared (OR, 8.2; p < 0.001) and higher comfort in delivering care (OR, 2.78; p = 0.016). Platform training was associated with feeling more prepared (OR, 4.66; p < 0.001), comfortable in delivering care (OR, 3.6; p = 0.002), feeling accepted as part of the team (OR, 3.18; p < 0.001), and more likely to participate in quality improvement (OR, 2.51; p = 0.001). A site visit also made a positive impact in feeling prepared (OR, 2.86; p < 0.001), comfortable (OR, 4.95; p = 0.002), feeling like recommendations were accepted (OR, 3.73; p < 0.001), more likely to recommend TCC (OR, 3.18; p = 0.001), and participating in quality improvement (OR, 3.24; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, structured training utilizing orientation, mentorship, and platform training as surrogates, along with a site visit before beginning delivery of care in a TCC setting, were associated with more positive perceptions in the delivery of care domains assessed. We highlight potentially important factors that warrant further evaluation and assessment of the need for standardization across TCC programs.