Smischney, Nathan J.

Objectives: In the last decade, the practice of intubation in the intensive care unit (ICU) has evolved. To further examine the current intubation practice in the ICU, we administered a survey to critical care physicians. Design: Cross-sectional survey study design. Setting: Thirty-two academic/nonacademic centers nationally and internationally. Measurements and Main Results: The survey was developed among a core group of physicians with the assistance of the Survey Research Center at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. The survey was pilot tested for functionality and reliability. The response rate was 82 (51%) of 160 among the 32 centers. Although propofol was the induction drug of choice, there was a significant difference with actual ketamine use and those who indicated a preference for it (ketamine: 52% vs 61%; P < .001). The most common airway device used for intubation was direct laryngoscopy (Miller laryngoscope blade) at 56 (68%) followed by video laryngoscopy at 26 (32%). Most (>90%) indicated that they have a difficult airway cart, but only 55 (67%) indicated they have a documented plan to handle a difficult airway with even lower results for documented review of adverse events (49%). Conclusion: Although propofol was the induction drug of choice, ketamine was a medication that many preferred to use, possibly relating to the fact that the most common complication postintubation is hypotension. Direct laryngoscopy remains the primary airway device for endotracheal intubation. Finally, although the majority stated they had a difficult airway cart available, most did not have a documented plan in place when encountering a difficult airway or a documented process to review adverse events surrounding intubation.

AbstractRationale, aims and objectivesChecklists have been adopted by various institutions to improve patient outcomes. In particular, readmission prevention checklists may be of potential value to improve patient care and reduce medical costs. As a result, a prior quality improvement study was conducted to create an intensive care unit readmission prevention checklist. The previous pilot demonstrated zero readmissions when the readmission prevention checklist was utilized but yielded low compliance (30%). Thus, a subsequent quality initiative was undertaken to refine the readmission prevention checklist with the primary aim of improved compliance while maintaining a reduced readmission rate that was observed with the original quality improvement study.MethodA single‐centre, cross‐sectional study for assessing baseline data and a prospective observational study to assess the effectiveness of a refined readmission prevention checklist tool in a 20‐bed tertiary medical‐surgical intensive care unit at an academic medical centre in Rochester, MN was conducted. Medical patients admitted through the emergency department, upon direct transfer from outside facility, and post‐operative surgical patients at our institution were included. A refined readmission prevention checklist tool was administered during an 8‐week pilot period for medical and post‐operative surgical patients.ResultsThe refined readmission prevention checklist resulted in an even lower compliance (10.5%) from the initial phase likely resulting from utilization of a paper readmission prevention checklist in an electronic medical environment. Moreover, the refined readmission prevention checklist demonstrated a 22% unplanned readmission rate for patients in which the tool was utilized.ConclusionsIn conclusion, the findings of the current quality improvement study may serve to rethink the process of health care delivery that applies paper tools in an electronic medical environment.