Tescher, Ann

OBJECTIVE: To review currently available devices on pressure injury (PI) early detection, summarize challenges and opportunities to clinical implementation, and propose evaluation standards for device categories. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) databases. STUDY SELECTION: Published in English from peer-reviewed journals with full text available. Excluded if opinion statements, lack of empirical data, or unrelated to project’s objective. DATA EXTRACTION: For both clinical device and research equipment: measurement mechanisms, measurement types, outcome/output, FDA classification, and indications for use. Addition data were extracted for clinical devices: instruction for use, end user, order requirement, and billable code. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 4 clinical devices are ultrasound, long-wave infrared thermography, subepidermal moisture assessment, and nearinfrared spectroscopy. The 3 research devices are laser Doppler flowmetry, laser speckle contrast imaging, and colorimetry. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement mechanisms of all devices are unique and different from each other. One commonality is that they could measure the nonvisual signs of PI (eg, inflammation, edema, ischemia, and hypoxia) except colorimeter. Some clinical devices are promising to assist with early identification of PIs, especially in individuals with dark skin tones. Currently, there is no reimbursement available for early detection of PI. Current evidence did not support replacing the standard skin assessment of visual inspection and palpation with the devices reviewed, rather using validated devices to augment the current practice standard. This is especially recommended for individuals identified as high risk for a PI on admission to a facility.

Objectives: Operating room-related pressure injuries (ORPI) are particularly challenging to examine for several reasons. Time in the OR is often a distinct event within the hospitalisation, and discovery of an ORPI may occur between several hours and up to 5 days postoperatively. The National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) first developed a root cause analysis (RCA) toolkit in 2017 as a systematic strategy for investigating the root causes of facility-acquired pressure injury (PI). The purpose of this 2021 RCA toolkit update was to address an expanded investigation of medical device-related PIs (MDRPIs), both inside and outside the OR, as well as the specific PI prevention issues of the perioperative area. Methods: Clinicians have been using the 2017 toolkit as a basis for ongoing quality improvement tracking, since it provides more accurate information than data extractions from patient health records. A small working group consisting of NPIAP board and panel members developed investigative questions to identify the ORPI root causes and compliance with best practices for the entire perioperative experience. Results: Action items are linked to evidence-based recommendations from the NPIAP/European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel/Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance 2019 International Guideline and the Association of PeriOperative Registered Nurses (AORN) Guidelines for Perioperative Practice. A multidisciplinary clinician guide was also developed to identify practice gaps and to compile the information into an action plan for staff education and/or process improvement. Conclusion: The updated NPIAP RCA toolkit provides mechanisms for investigating, compiling and trending data as a basis for data-driven quality improvement. Using the enhanced investigative tools, the root causes of both MDRPIs and ORPIs can be better understood to target efforts to reduce their occurrence.

AbstractCOVID‐19 has infected millions of patients and impacted healthcare workers worldwide. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is a key component of protecting frontline clinicians against infection. The benefits of PPE far outweigh the risks, nonetheless, many clinicians are exhibiting skin injury caused by PPE worn incorrectly. These skin injuries, ranging from lesions to open wounds are concerning because they increase the susceptibility of viral infection and transmission to other individuals. Early into the COVID‐19 pandemic (April 2020), the U. S. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) developed a series of position statements to improve wear‐ability of PPE and protect healthcare professionals and their patients as safe from harm as possible under the circumstances. The NPIAP positions, which were formed by conducting a systematic review of what was known at the time, include: (a) Prepare skin before and after wearing PPE with skin sealants, barrier creams and moisturisers; (b) Frequent PPE offloading to relieve pressure and shear applied to skin; (c) treat visible skin injuries immediately caused by PPE to minimise future infection; (d) non‐porous dressings may provide additional skin protection, but lack evidence; (e) health systems should take care to educate clinicians about placement and personal hygiene related to handling PPE. Throughout all of these practices, handwashing remains a top priority to handle PPE. These NPIAP positions provided early guidance to reduce the risk of skin injury caused by PPE based on available research regarding PPE injuries, a cautious application of evidence‐based recommendations on prevention of device‐related pressure injuries in patients and the expert opinion of the NPIAP Board of Directors. Clinicians who adhere to these recommendations reduce the prospects of skin damage and long‐term effects (e.g. scarring). These simple steps to minimise the risk of skin injury and reduce the risk of coronavirus infection from PPE can help.

BACKGROUND: ARDS remains a source of significant morbidity and mortality in the critically ill patient. The mainstay of therapy entails invasive mechanical ventilation utilizing a lung-protective strategy designed to limit lung injury associated with excessive stress and strain while the underlying etiology of respiratory failure is identified and treated. Less is understood about what to do once conventional ventilation parameters have been optimized but the patient's respiratory status remains unchanged or worsens. In 2015, a protocolized, stepwise approach to mechanical ventilation with partially automated and clearly defined thresholds for management changes was implemented at our institution. We hypothesized that, by identifying appropriate patients earlier, time-to-escalation and rescue therapy implementation would be shortened. METHODS: Subjects with severe ARDS, treated with prone positioning based on our institution's protocolized approach from December 2013 to August 2016 were included. Their baseline characteristics, severity of illness scores, and mechanical ventilation parameters were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, tidal volumes, P aO 2 / F IO 2 , duration of ventilation after proning, and mortality were similar in both groups. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) PEEP at the time of proning was higher after the protocol implementation (12.5 cm H 2 O [IQR 6.5–19.4] vs 18 cm H 2 O [IQR 10–22], P = .386), and mean (IQR) respiratory system driving pressure was lower (16 cm H 2 O [IQR 13–36.2] vs 12 cm H 2 O [IQR 9–19.6], P = .029). Median (IQR) time from refractory hypoxemia identification to proning was shorter after protocol implementation (42.2 h [IQR 6.83–347.2] vs 16.3 h [IQR 1–99.7], I = .02), and P aO 2 / F IO 2 at 1 h after proning was higher. ICU and hospital LOS were shorter after the protocol implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Following the implementation of an early, evidence-based, protocolized approach to optimizing mechanical ventilation, subjects with true refractory hypoxemia were identified earlier and time to proning was significantly shorter. Despite improvement in the evaluation and management of refractory hypoxemia as well as time to initiation of prone positioning, mortality was unchanged and there was variation in the duration of the position.

Objective: To update the 2002 version of “Clinical practice guidelines for sustained neuromuscular blockade in the adult critically ill patient.” Design: A Task Force comprising 17 members of the Society of Critical Medicine with particular expertise in the use of neuromuscular-blocking agents; a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation expert; and a medical writer met via teleconference and three face-to-face meetings and communicated via e-mail to examine the evidence and develop these practice guidelines. Annually, all members completed conflict of interest statements; no conflicts were identified. This activity was funded by the Society for Critical Care Medicine, and no industry support was provided. Methods: Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation expert on the Task Force created profiles for the evidence related to six of the 21 questions and assigned quality-of-evidence scores to these and the additional 15 questions for which insufficient evidence was available to create a profile. Task Force members reviewed this material and all available evidence and provided recommendations, suggestions, or good practice statements for these 21 questions. Results: The Task Force developed a single strong recommendation: we recommend scheduled eye care that includes lubricating drops or gel and eyelid closure for patients receiving continuous infusions of neuromuscular-blocking agents. The Task Force developed 10 weak recommendations. 1) We suggest that a neuromuscular-blocking agent be administered by continuous intravenous infusion early in the course of acute respiratory distress syndrome for patients with a Pa o 2 /F io 2 less than 150. 2) We suggest against the routine administration of an neuromuscular-blocking agents to mechanically ventilated patients with status asthmaticus. 3) We suggest a trial of a neuromuscular-blocking agents in life-threatening situations associated with profound hypoxemia, respiratory acidosis, or hemodynamic compromise. 4) We suggest that neuromuscular-blocking agents may be used to manage overt shivering in therapeutic hypothermia. 5) We suggest that peripheral nerve stimulation with train-of-four monitoring may be a useful tool for monitoring the depth of neuromuscular blockade but only if it is incorporated into a more inclusive assessment of the patient that includes clinical assessment. 6) We suggest against the use of peripheral nerve stimulation with train of four alone for monitoring the depth of neuromuscular blockade in patients receiving continuous infusion of neuromuscular-blocking agents. 7) We suggest that patients receiving a continuous infusion of neuromuscular-blocking agent receive a structured physiotherapy regimen. 8) We suggest that clinicians target a blood glucose level of less than 180 mg/dL in patients receiving neuromuscular-blocking agents. 9) We suggest that clinicians not use actual body weight and instead use a consistent weight (ideal body weight or adjusted body weight) when calculating neuromuscular-blocking agents doses for obese patients. 10) We suggest that neuromuscular-blocking agents be discontinued at the end of life or when life support is withdrawn. In situations in which evidence was lacking or insufficient and the study results were equivocal or optimal clinical practice varies, the Task Force made no recommendations for nine of the topics. 1) We make no recommendation as to whether neuromuscular blockade is beneficial or harmful when used in patients with acute brain injury and raised intracranial pressure. 2) We make no recommendation on the routine use of neuromuscular-blocking agents for patients undergoing therapeutic hypothermia following cardiac arrest. 3) We make no recommendation on the use of peripheral nerve stimulation to monitor degree of block in patients undergoing therapeutic hypothermia. 4) We make no recommendation on the use of neuromuscular blockade to improve the accuracy of intravascular-volume assessment in mechanically ventilated patients. 5) We make no recommendation concerning the use of electroencephalogram-derived parameters as a measure of sedation during continuous administration of neuromuscular-blocking agents. 6) We make no recommendation regarding nutritional requirements specific to patients receiving infusions of neuromuscular-blocking agents. 7) We make no recommendation concerning the use of one measure of consistent weight over another when calculating neuromuscular-blocking agent doses in obese patients. 8) We make no recommendation on the use of neuromuscular-blocking agents in pregnant patients. 9) We make no recommendation on which muscle group should be monitored in patients with myasthenia gravis receiving neuromuscular-blocking agents. Finally, in situations in which evidence was lacking or insufficient but expert consensus was unanimous, the Task Force developed six good practice statements. 1) If peripheral nerve stimulation is used, optimal clinical practice suggests that it should be done in conjunction with assessment of other clinical findings (e.g., triggering of the ventilator and degree of shivering) to assess the degree of neuromuscular blockade in patients undergoing therapeutic hypothermia. 2) Optimal clinical practice suggests that a protocol should include guidance on neuromuscular-blocking agent administration in patients undergoing therapeutic hypothermia. 3) Optimal clinical practice suggests that analgesic and sedative drugs should be used prior to and during neuromuscular blockade, with the goal of achieving deep sedation. 4) Optimal clinical practice suggests that clinicians at the bedside implement measure to attenuate the risk of unintended extubation in patients receiving neuromuscular-blocking agents. 5) Optimal clinical practice suggests that a reduced dose of an neuromuscular-blocking agent be used for patients with myasthenia gravis and that the dose should be based on peripheral nerve stimulation with train-of-four monitoring. 6) Optimal clinical practice suggests that neuromuscular-blocking agents be discontinued prior to the clinical determination of brain death.