Schultz, Marcus J

Background Adherence to evidence-based care processes and patient outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) can be influenced by staffing and resource availability. We aimed to evaluate if there is a weekend effect on adherence to evidence-based care processes, and hospitalization outcomes and whether a checklist implementation could mitigate potential differences. Methods Post hoc analysis of the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury (CERTAIN) study dataset collected before and after checklist implementation in 34 ICUs across 15 countries (2013-2017). Admission days were classified as ‘weekend/holidays’ or ‘weekdays’ according to local work schedules and public holidays. The primary outcome was the omission of 10 evidence-based care processes addressed in the checklist. Mortality and length of stay differences between weekend/holiday and weekday admissions were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Results 4256 patients contributed 1141 weekend versus 3501 weekday observation days pre-intervention, and 2014 versus 6507 post-intervention. Pre-intervention, peptic ulcer prophylaxis was omitted more frequently on weekends/holidays than weekdays (adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 0.58 [95%–confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.88), whereas head-of-bed elevation was omitted more often on weekdays than on weekends/holidays (aRR, 3.17 [1.14-8.86]). Post-intervention, peptic ulcer prophylaxis omission rates became similar (aRR, 1.03 [0.68-1.56], but head-of-bed elevation became omitted more often on weekends than on weekdays (aRR, 0.63 [0.45-0.88]). Post-intervention, oral care was omitted more frequently on weekends/holidays than in weekdays (aRR, 0.63 [0.45-0.9]), and central catheter removal was more frequent on weekdays than in weekends/holidays (aRR, 1.11 [1.02-1.21]). No significant differences in mortality or length of stay were found. Conclusion A weekend effect influenced adherence to some care processes. While checklist implementation improved overall adherence, some disparities diminished, while new ones emerged. Organizational, cultural, and temporal factors should be further studied to optimize care delivery across all times and settings. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT01973829

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the “Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury” decision support tool during ICU admission and rounding is associated with improvements in nonadherence to evidence-based daily care processes and outcomes in variably resourced ICUs. DESIGN, SETTINGS, PATIENTS: This before-after study was performed in 34 ICUs (15 countries) from 2013 to 2017. Data were collected for 3 months before and 6 months after Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury implementation. INTERVENTIONS: Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury implementation using remote simulation training. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The coprimary outcomes, modified from the original protocol before data analysis, were nonadherence to 10 basic care processes and ICU and hospital length of stay. There were 1,447 patients in the preimplementation phase and 2,809 patients in the postimplementation phase. After adjusting for center effect, Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury implementation was associated with reduced nonadherence to care processes (adjusted incidence rate ratio [95% CI]): deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis (0.74 [0.68–0.81), peptic ulcer prophylaxis (0.46 [0.38–0.57]), spontaneous breathing trial (0.81 [0.76–0.86]), family conferences (0.86 [0.81–0.92]), and daily assessment for the need of central venous catheters (0.85 [0.81–0.90]), urinary catheters (0.84 [0.80–0.88]), antimicrobials (0.66 [0.62–0.71]), and sedation (0.62 [0.57–0.67]). Analyses adjusted for baseline characteristics showed associations of Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury implementation with decreased ICU length of stay (adjusted ratio of geometric means [95% CI]) 0.86 [0.80–0.92]), hospital length of stay (0.92 [0.85–0.97]), and hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI], 0.81 (0.69–0.95). CONCLUSIONS: A quality-improvement intervention with remote simulation training to implement a decision support tool was associated with decreased nonadherence to daily care processes, shorter length of stay, and decreased mortality.

Introduction Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has emerged as an alternative minimally invasive surgical option. Despite its growing applicability, the frequent need for pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position could significantly affect respiratory mechanics during RAS. AVATaR is an international multicenter observational study aiming to assess the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC), to characterise current practices of mechanical ventilation (MV) and to evaluate a possible association between ventilatory parameters and PPC in patients undergoing RAS. Methods and analysis AVATaR is an observational study of surgical patients undergoing MV for general anaesthesia for RAS. The primary outcome is the incidence of PPC during the first five postoperative days. Secondary outcomes include practice of MV, effect of surgical positioning on MV, effect of MV on clinical outcome and intraoperative complications. Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein. The study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at international conferences. Trial registration number NCT02989415 ; Pre-results.

Abstract Rationale Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The evidence supporting NIV use in patients with ARDS remains relatively sparse. Objectives To determine whether, during NIV, the categorization of ARDS severity based on the PaO2/FiO2 Berlin criteria is useful. Methods The LUNG SAFE (Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure) study described the management of patients with ARDS. This substudy examines the current practice of NIV use in ARDS, the utility of the PaO2/FiO2 ratio in classifying patients receiving NIV, and the impact of NIV on outcome. Measurements and Main Results Of 2,813 patients with ARDS, 436 (15.5%) were managed with NIV on Days 1 and 2 following fulfillment of diagnostic criteria. Classification of ARDS severity based on PaO2/FiO2 ratio was associated with an increase in intensity of ventilatory support, NIV failure, and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. NIV failure occurred in 22.2% of mild, 42.3% of moderate, and 47.1% of patients with severe ARDS. Hospital mortality in patients with NIV success and failure was 16.1% and 45.4%, respectively. NIV use was independently associated with increased ICU (hazard ratio, 1.446 [95% confidence interval, 1.159–1.805]), but not hospital, mortality. In a propensity matched analysis, ICU mortality was higher in NIV than invasively ventilated patients with a PaO2/FiO2 lower than 150 mm Hg. Conclusions NIV was used in 15% of patients with ARDS, irrespective of severity category. NIV seems to be associated with higher ICU mortality in patients with a PaO2/FiO2 lower than 150 mm Hg. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02010073).

Mechanical ventilation practice has changed over the past few decades, with tidal volumes (VT) decreasing significantly, especially in patients with acute lung injury (ALI). Patients without acute lung injury are still ventilated with large--and perhaps too large--VT. Studies of ventilator-associated lung injury in subjects without ALI demonstrate inconsistent results. Retrospective clinical studies, however, suggest that the use of large VT favors the development of lung injury in these patients. Side effects associated with the use of lower VT in patients with ALI seem to be minimal. Assuming that this will be the case in patients without ALI/acute respiratory distress syndrome too, the authors suggest that the use of lower VT should be considered in all mechanically ventilated patients whether they have ALI or not. Prospective studies should be performed to evaluate optimal ventilator management strategies for patients without ALI.