Citations

Abstract Rationale Clear and accurate communication is essential in critical care, yet patients with non-English language preferences (NELP) often face limited access to professional interpreters. Although machine translation has been explored in healthcare, most studies have focused on written translation. Their use in real-time, two-way interpretation specifically for high-stakes ICU conversations remains largely unexamined. To bridge this gap, we developed AI-TransLATE (AI-enhanced Transition to Language-Agnostic Transcultural Engagement), a voice-to-voice multilingual interpretation tool designed to support real-time interactions in critical care. Following successful initial validation, we evaluated clinicians’ perceptions of its usability in simulated ICU encounters and compared its performance with commercially available AI tools, including Gemini and ChatGPT. Methods We developed three standardized ICU role-play scenarios focused on shared decision-making regarding ECMO, tracheostomy, and comfort care, designed to encourage natural, unscripted dialogue. Clinicians were asked to use the AI translation tools during these encounters in Spanish, Chinese, or Arabic, while a bilingual research team member acted as the patient’s family member. After each simulation, participants completed a post-session survey evaluating communication quality, satisfaction (using a 5-point Likert scale), and usability through the System Usability Scale (SUS). Results Eighteen clinicians participated, including residents, fellows, and attending physicians with an average of 3.6 ± 1.2 years of postgraduate experience. Fifty-four post-simulation surveys were completed across Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish languages comparing AI-TransLATE, ChatGPT, and Google Gemini. Participants rated the simulation as realistic across all cases (ECMO = 3.94 ± 0.66; Tracheostomy = 4.22 ± 0.43; Comfort Care = 4.06 ± 0.42; p = 0.32). Satisfaction was highest for AI-TransLATE (4.11 ± 0.68) and ChatGPT (4.00 ± 0.69) but lowest for Gemini (2.06 ± 1.00; p < 0.001). Willingness to use in real life followed the same trend. (AI-TransLATE = 4.00 ± 0.69, ChatGPT = 3.89 ± 0.96, Gemini = 2.00 ± 1.03 (p < 0.001)). SUS scores supported these findings (AI-TransLATE = 71.25 ± 13.35; ChatGPT = 72.22 ± 15.57; Gemini = 40.28 ± 21.30; p < 0.001), corresponding to good usability for AI-TransLATE and ChatGPT and poor usability for Gemini. Clinicians mentioned interruptions, uneven translation flow, and difficulty judging accuracy, but appreciated it when the AI-TransLATE conveyed tone and intonation, enabling smoother, more natural communication. Conclusion Overall, AI-TransLATE and ChatGPT demonstrated strong usability and satisfaction, showing promise as clinical communication tools; however, further validation in real-world ICU settings is warranted, and data privacy and confidentiality remain important considerations. This abstract is funded by: Critical care research committee mayo clinic

Abstract Rationale Critical care education has been identified as a global priority to improve the early identification and management of common syndromes, including sepsis and respiratory failure. International practice varies widely, and frontline clinical team perspectives remain poorly defined. The CERTAIN (Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and iNjury) program provides a structured, checklist-based approach shown to improve the delivery of best practices and patient-centered outcomes worldwide. Over the past decade we have performed a needs assessment at the start of each international CERTAIN program. We performed a retrospective analysis of these data to examine the critical care domains prioritized by frontline interprofessional teams to inform global training priorities. MethodsWe developed an anonymous online survey consisting of 20 previously defined activities essential to the practice of critical care. Participants ranked these activities using Q-sort methodology on a forced distribution scale from -4 (lowest priority) to + 4 (highest priority). Individual rankings were summed across all participants to generate aggregate scores for each activity, with higher values reflecting greater collective prioritization. Aggregate scores were calculated for the entire cohort and each site and summarized with bar plots to illustrate prioritization patterns across critical care domains. ResultsA total of 213 intensivists, emergency medicine physicians, nurses, and pharmacists from hospitals in China (75), Cambodia (70), Croatia (31), Japan (24) and India (13) completed the survey. The distribution of priorities across content domains is illustrated in Figure. Management of shock, sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and respiratory failure received the highest aggregate scores. Interprofessional critical care coordination was the only process of care activity identified as high priority, and transitions of care, patient centered communication, and shared decision making were consistently ranked lowest. While minor variation existed across individual sites, resuscitation and the acute management of high-risk clinical conditions were consistently prioritized over processes of care and patient-centered care domains. ConclusionThis multicenter analysis demonstrates consistent interprofessional clinician prioritization of acute clinical management topics for training. These insights inform both areas of emphasis and highlight challenges that CERTAIN and other programs face to improve global patient care delivery. Variation in care processes has been consistently identified as the largest modifiable factor to improve patient outcomes, and cultural differences may present barriers to engagement on the best approaches to patient centered care. Figure. Distribution of aggregate Q-sort scores across 20 critical care activities. Scores represent summed participant rankings (n=213) from -4 (lowest priority) to +4 (highest priority). This abstract is funded by: None

Abstract Effective communication in the intensive care unit (ICU) is essential, particularly for patients with non-English language preference, yet timely access to professional interpreters remains limited. While artificial intelligence (AI)-based translation tools have been explored in outpatient and nonacute care settings, studies evaluating their use in acute care, environments such as the ICU remain limited. To address this gap, we developed AI-TransLATE (AI-enhanced Transition to Language-Agnostic Transcultural Engagement), a speech-based translation tool designed for multilingual communication in critical care settings. This study aimed to assess the interpretation quality of AI-TransLATE across four languages—Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Turkish—using scripted ICU scenarios. We created ICU communication scripts and recorded bilingual research team members simulating clinical interactions. Two independent bilingual evaluators assessed interpretation quality using a 5-point Likert scale across fluency, adequacy, meaning preservation, and severity of errors. Clarity and cultural appropriateness were also rated. Percentage agreement was used to assess interrater agreement. AI-TransLATE achieved acceptable composite scores (≥16/20) across all languages. Spanish and Turkish performed consistently well; Chinese and Arabic showed variability due to omissions and terminology errors. AI-TransLATE shows promise as a clinical communication tool, but further evaluation in real-world, unscripted ICU settings is needed.

Background: Patients with non-English Language Preference are at risk of adverse health outcomes, particularly at end of life and during serious illness. Medical interpreters often feel unprepared to interpret conversations about serious illness. Best practice guidelines recommend a pre-encounter huddle between clinician and interpreter to better prepare both providers. The CHECK-IN (Check in for Exchange of Clinical and Key Information) guide is a simple communication tool designed to facilitate this pre-encounter huddle. We describe the results of a pilot feasibility study of the CHECK-IN guide performed in a simulation environment. The primary objectives of the study were to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary performance of the CHECK-IN guide. Methods: This U.S.-based study is a single-center simulation-based nonblinded randomized pilot feasibility study. Participating clinicians were randomized to usual practice (control) vs. introduction to the CHECK-IN guide (intervention). Clinicians completed pre- and post-session surveys. Participating clinicians were evaluated using the Faculty Observation Rating Scale (FORS), Interpreter Scale (IS), and Interpreter Impact Rating Scale (IIRS). Results: Participants had a highly favorable opinion on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the CHECK-IN tool; 91% of participants agreed/strongly agreed on the acceptability of the tool, 91% agreed/strongly agreed on the appropriateness of the tool, and 100% agreed/strongly agreed on the feasibility of the tool. There were no statistical differences between control and intervention groups for the IS, IIRS, and FORS scores. Conclusion: The CHECK-IN guide is a promising tool to guide a pre-encounter huddle between clinician and interpreter, thereby improving interpreter-mediated communication when having conversations about serious illness.

This systematic review examined multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during the Sepsis-3 era that evaluated pharmaceutical and mechanistic interventions in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock, with a focus on identifying interventions that demonstrated mortality benefit. A comprehensive search was performed across Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and Web of Science for trials published since 2016. Studies were included if they enrolled adult patients with sepsis or septic shock using Sepsis-3 criteria and reported mortality as either a primary or secondary outcome. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and included trial design characteristics, funding source, randomization methods, and reported outcomes. Among the 31 eligible multicenter RCTs enrolling over 7,000 patients across 550 centers, only four trials showed a mortality benefit. These included three studies from China—two evaluating herbal anti-inflammatory compounds and one evaluating aminophylline—and one European study assessing corticosteroid therapy in vasopressor-dependent septic shock. The remaining 27 trials reported no mortality benefit, and substantial heterogeneity was observed in patient populations, sepsis definitions, and outcome reporting. Median mortality in control arms was 31.6% (IQR 24.1–45.5), and 35.4% (IQR 25.7–49.6) in intervention arms. These findings suggest that despite extensive efforts, most interventions have not reduced mortality in multicenter sepsis trials. Future research should focus on optimizing trial design, refining patient selection, and incorporating patient-centered outcomes beyond mortality.

Abstract Objectives Effective communication is crucial in healthcare, and for patients with a non-English language preference (NELP), professional interpreters are recognized as the gold standard in supporting bidirectional communication. However, interpreters are not always readily available, prompting the exploration of other options for translation and interpretation. The recent developments in artificial intelligence-based neural network translation tools, namely neural machine translation (NMT) may enable robust interpretation and translation. Materials and Methods We conducted a systematic review (SR) to evaluate the literature on NMT for this purpose. We did a comprehensive search of several databases with guidance from a professional librarian. The search was limited to the year 2000 onwards and English language. Title and abstract screening and full-text review were independently conducted by two reviewers with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer Results 2867 studies were identified with 10 studies included in the final analysis. Among these, six evaluated interpretation in real or simulated clinical settings and four examined translation of discharge materials. Google Translate and ChatGPT were assessed in several studies. Accuracy differed by language, with low-resource languages performing worse. Discussion NMT technologies in healthcare have several advantages including broad language accessibility and potential cost savings for institutions. Despite improved accuracy of these novel tools, due to possible critical errors NMT tools are not yet ready for widespread clinical use. Conclusion Future studies should focus on optimizing evaluation methods as well as how best to integrate these technologies into real-time clinical settings.

Abstract Introduction Brain abscess is a serious condition in children, leading to rapid deterioration, and permanent neurological damage associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Current management protocols for brain abscesses focus on intravenous antibiotics and surgical excision and drainage. Case Presentation A 12-year-old adolescent male who had headache and photophobia and was diagnosed with multiple brain abscesses and was refractory to conventional medical and neurosurgical intervention. A single dose of 10 mg vancomycin was administered through endo-ventricular drain, resulting in resolution of abscesses and alleviation of symptoms. Conclusion We describe the first instance of intraventricular vancomycin use in the pediatric age group for the treatment of multiple brain abscesses. Given the variability in dosing reported in the literature, our case report warrants further studies to standardize dosage for this rare intervention.

Abstract Rationale: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of cancer. They are also associated with life-threatening immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including the rare, poorly understood, and potentially fatal triad of myasthenia gravis, myocarditis, and myositis(triple M syndrome). We aimed to describe the management, intensive care unit (ICU)utilization, and outcomes of patients with irAEs with a specific focus on triple M syndrome. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with irAEs admitted to three quaternary care hospitals between December 2018 and 2023. We aimed to collect data on demographics, cancer type, treatment, ICU resource utilization, and outcomes including mortality. Results: Over this 5-year period, 140 patients were admitted for irAEs. Forty-nine percent were male, median age was 73 (IQR 64-80) years, 7% were of African American or Asian descent, and 32%required ICU admission. Median ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) were 1.5 (IQR 0.7-2.9)and 7.2 (IQR 4.1-13.4) days, respectively. Among ICU patients, 14/140 (10%) had myositis,22/140 (16%) myocarditis, and 9/140 (6.4%) myasthenia gravis. Triple-M syndrome was diagnosed in 7/140 (5%) patients, including 3 with metastatic melanoma, 2 with genitourinary malignancies, 1 with metastatic lung and 1 with colon cancer. Four had received pembrolizumab and 3 nivolumab. Median ICU and hospital LOS were 3 (IQR 1-6) and 10 (IQR 8-21) days in this group. Three patients required mechanical ventilation, one required tracheostomy, and one required vasopressor support. Triple-M management included corticosteroids, IVIG, pyridostigmine, mycophenolate mofetil, and rituximab. Patients with triple-M syndrome were significantly older than other patients with ICI toxicity (P <0.009) and had higher mortality (57%vs 25%, p = 0.07). Patients discharged from the ICU had a median survival of 67 (IQR 26-201)days. Conclusions: Patients with irAEs frequently require ICU level of support with significant morbidity and mortality, especially with triple M syndrome. Clinicians should always consider the possibility of triple-M syndrome in patients with multiple irAEs as symptoms can be subtle and easily overlooked. Corticosteroids remain the primary treatment of irAEs and can be combined with other immunosuppressive agents such as infliximab, anti-thymocyte globulin, or pyridostigmine. Unfortunately, mortality due to triple-M syndrome remains high underscoring the importance of early recognition and prompt multidisciplinary management of these toxicities.