Citations

Background: Surviving critical illness often creates a lasting psychological impact, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. Memories of frightening and delusional experiences are the largest potentially modifiable risk factor, but currently, there is no proven intervention to improve these inciting factors. Psychological support based on positive suggestion is a psychotherapeutic approach that can be provided even to patients in altered cognitive states and is therefore a viable psychotherapy intervention throughout the ICU stay. Traditional ICU care team members have limited time and training to provide such psychological support to patients. Doulas are trained supportive companions who have been effectively used to provide patient advocacy and emotional support in other clinical settings and may address this need. Our aim was to train and implement a psychological support based on positive suggestion program for the critically ill using doulas, and measure acceptance of this intervention through stakeholder feedback. Methods: Doula training included three objectives: an introduction to ICU practice structure and policies; education about fundamental aspects of critical care conditions and procedures; and didactic and hands-on learning experiences in effective use of psychological support based on positive suggestion in the critically ill. Doulas were evaluated at the end of their training and during subsequent clinical activities using competency-based assessments as well as through survey-based questions and interviews with key stakeholders. Results: The ICU doulas performed psychological support based on positive suggestion on 43 critically ill patients in the ICU setting. Stakeholder feedback from nurses, patients, and patient families was positive. The majority (28/32) of surveyed bedside ICU nurses reported that the doulas’ involvement was helpful for both patients and nurses alike. All interviewed family members offered positive comments about the ICU doula presence and of the 40 patients who recalled the intervention 37 found it comforting. Conclusions: Our program successfully trained two doulas to work effectively in the ICU setting performing patient-centered psychological support based on positive suggestion interventions. Their training improved their skill sets and was reported as beneficial by patients, families, and critical care nursing. This training program offers a proof of concept that could be applied in other medical centers, bringing doulas more commonly into the ICU practice to help humanize the experience for patients, families, and medical teams.

Objectives Diagnostic error and delay is a prevalent and impactful problem. This study was part of a mixed-methods approach to understand the organizational, clinician, and patient factors contributing to diagnostic error and delay among acutely ill patients within a health system, as well as recommendations for the development of tailored, targeted, feasible, and effective interventions. Methods We did a multisite qualitative study using focus group methodology to explore the perspectives of key clinician stakeholders. We used a conceptual framework that characterized diagnostic error and delay as occurring within 1 of 3 stages of the patient’s diagnostic journey—critical information gathering, synthesis of key information, and decision making and communication. We developed our moderator guide based on the sociotechnical frameworks previously described by Holden and Singh for understanding noncognitive factors that lead to diagnostic error and delay. Deidentified focus group transcripts were coded in triplicate and to consensus over a series of meetings. A final coded data set was then uploaded into NVivo software. The data were then analyzed to generate overarching themes and categories. Results We recruited a total of 64 participants across 4 sites from emergency departments, hospital floor, and intensive care unit settings into 11 focus groups. Clinicians perceive that diverse organizational, communication and coordination, individual clinician, and patient factors interact to impede the process of making timely and accurate diagnoses. Conclusions This study highlights the complex sociotechnical system within which individual clinicians operate and the contributions of systems, processes, and institutional factors to diagnostic error and delay.

Objectives This study aimed to explore clinicians’ perceptions of the occurrence of and factors associated with diagnostic errors in patients evaluated during a rapid response team (RRT) activation or unplanned admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods A multicenter prospective survey study was conducted among multiprofessional clinicians involved in the care of patients with RRT activations and/or unplanned ICU admissions (UIAs) at 2 academic hospitals and 1 community-based hospital between April 2019 and March 2020. A study investigator screened eligible patients every day. Within 24 hours of the event, a research coordinator administered the survey to clinicians, who were asked the following: whether diagnostic errors contributed to the reason for RRT/UIA, whether any new diagnosis was made after RRT/UIA, if there were any failures to communicate the diagnosis, and if involvement of specialists earlier would have benefited that patient. Patient clinical data were extracted from the electronic health record. Results A total of 1815 patients experienced RRT activations, and 1024 patients experienced UIA. Clinicians reported that 18.2% (95/522) of patients experienced diagnostic errors, 8.0% (42/522) experienced a failure of communication, and 16.7% (87/522) may have benefitted from earlier involvement of specialists. Compared with academic settings, clinicians in the community hospital were less likely to report diagnostic errors (7.0% versus 22.8%, P = 0.002). Conclusions Clinicians report a high rate of diagnostic errors in patients they evaluate during RRT or UIAs.

Purpose: To describe the epidemiology, outcomes, and temporal trends of respiratory failure in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). Materials and Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis of 2,986 unique Mayo Clinic CICU patients from 2007 to 2018 with respiratory failure. Temporal trends were analyzed, along with hospital and 1-year mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine adjusted hospital mortality trends. Results: The prevalence of respiratory failure in the CICU increased from 15% to 38% during the study period ( P < 0.001 for trend). Among patients with respiratory failure, the utilization of invasive ventilation decreased and noninvasive ventilation modalities increased over time. Hospital mortality and 1-year mortality were 24% and 54%, respectively, with variation according to the type of respiratory support (highest among patients receiving invasive ventilation alone: 35% and 46%, respectively). Hospital mortality was highest among patients with concomitant cardiac arrest and/or shock (52% for patients with both). Hospital mortality decreased in the overall population from 35% to 25% ( P < 0.001 for trend), but was unchanged among patients receiving positive-pressure ventilation. Conclusions: The prevalence of respiratory failure in CICU more than doubled during the last decade. The use of noninvasive respiratory support increased, while overall mortality declined over time. Cardiac arrest and shock accounted for the majority of deaths. Further research is needed to optimize the outcomes of high-risk CICU patients with respiratory failure.

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.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of hospitalized patients in a multicenter, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study including coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between February 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, according to age and type of organ support therapies. SETTING: About 168 hospitals in 16 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients who did and did not require various types and combinations of organ support (mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were discharge home with or without assistance and hospital length of stay. Risk-adjusted variation in hospital mortality for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed by using multilevel models with hospitals as a random effect, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities. Among 20,608 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the mean (± sd ) age was 60.5 (±17), 11,1887 (54.3%) were men, 8,745 (42.4%) were admitted to the ICU, and 3,906 (19%) died in the hospital. Hospital mortality was 8.2% for patients receiving no organ support ( n = 15,001). The most common organ support therapy was invasive mechanical ventilation ( n = 5,005; 24.3%), with a hospital mortality of 49.8%. Mortality ranged from 40.8% among patients receiving only invasive mechanical ventilation ( n =1,749) to 71.6% for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and new renal replacement therapy ( n = 655). Mortality was 39% for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ( n = 389). Rates of discharge home ranged from 73.5% for patients who did not require organ support therapies to 29.8% for patients who only received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8.8% for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and renal replacement; 10.8% of patients older than 74 years who received invasive mechanical ventilation were discharged home. Median hospital length of stay for patients on mechanical ventilation was 17.1 days (9.7-28 d). Adjusted interhospital variation in mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was large (median odds ratio 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease 2019 prognosis varies by age and level of organ support. Interhospital variation in mortality of mechanically ventilated patients was not explained by patient characteristics and requires further evaluation.

Abstract Patients hospitalized for pneumonia are at high risk for mortality. Effective therapies are therefore needed. Recent randomized clinical trials suggest that systemic steroids can reduce the length of hospital stays among patients hospitalized for pneumonia. Furthermore, preliminary findings from a feasibility study demonstrated that early treatment with a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a bronchodilator can improve oxygenation and reduce risk of respiratory failure in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether such a combination administered early is effective in reducing acute respiratory failure (ARF) among patients hospitalized with pneumonia is unknown. Here we describe the ARREST Pneumonia (Arrest Respiratory Failure due to Pneumonia) trial designed to address this question. ARREST Pneumonia is a two-arm, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial designed to test the efficacy of a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a β-agonist compared with placebo for the prevention of ARF in hospitalized participants with severe pneumonia. The primary outcome is ARF within 7 days of randomization, defined as a composite endpoint of intubation and mechanical ventilation; need for high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation for &gt;36 hours (each alone or combined); or death within 36 hours of being placed on respiratory support. The planned enrollment is 600 adult participants at 10 academic medical centers. In addition, we will measure selected plasma biomarkers to better understand mechanisms of action. The trial is funded by the U.S. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 04193878).