Herasevich, Vitaly

Purpose: The strategy used to improve effective checklist use in intensive care unit (ICU) setting is essential for checklist success. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that an electronic checklist could reduce ICU provider workload, errors, and time to checklist completion, as compared to a paper checklist. Methods: This was a simulation-based study conducted at an academic tertiary hospital. All participants completed checklists for 6 ICU patients: 3 using an electronic checklist and 3 using an identical paper checklist. In both scenarios, participants had full access to the existing electronic medical record system. The outcomes measured were workload (defined using the National Aeronautics and Space Association task load index [NASA-TLX]), the number of checklist errors, and time to checklist completion. Two independent clinician reviewers, blinded to participant results, served as the reference standard for checklist error calculation. Results: Twenty-one ICU providers participated in this study. This resulted in the generation of 63 simulated electronic checklists and 63 simulated paper checklists. The median NASA-TLX score was 39 for the electronic checklist and 50 for the paper checklist ( P = .005). The median number of checklist errors for the electronic checklist was 5, while the median number of checklist errors for the paper checklist was 8 ( P = .003). The time to checklist completion was not significantly different between the 2 checklist formats ( P = .76). Conclusion: The electronic checklist significantly reduced provider workload and errors without any measurable difference in the amount of time required for checklist completion. This demonstrates that electronic checklists are feasible and desirable in the ICU setting.

Background: Medication use in the intensive care unit (ICU) depends on creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimates. Urine output deterioration may precede the creatinine rise resulting in delayed recognition of GFR reductions. Our objective was to quantify the disparity between estimated GFR (eGFR) and true GFR in ICU patients with hospital-acquired oligoanuric acute kidney injury (hAKI). Methods: This single-center cohort study examined adults who met the Acute Kidney Injury Network stage III urine output criterion ≥48 hours after ICU admission. True GFR was ≤15 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , and eGFR was described by 6 different creatinine-based equations. True GFR and eGFR were compared on the day of hAKI diagnosis and followed for 4 days using multivariable linear regression with generalized estimating equations, adjusting for day and method. Results: Of the 691 patients screened, we enrolled 61 patients. After adjustment for multiple comparisons and day, there were significant differences in eGFR between the estimation methods and true GFR ( P < .001). After day adjustment, eGFR overestimated true GFR by 17 to 50 mL/min/1.73 m 2 and overestimation persisted through the fourth day of hAKI ( P ≤ .001). Conclusion: Creatinine-based equations overestimated GFR in ICU patients with hAKI. This study highlights a population at risk of medication misadventures in whom systems optimization should be considered.

Abstract Rationale Provider decisions about patients to be discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU) are often based on subjective intuition, sometimes leading to premature discharge and early readmission. The Stability and Work Load Index for Transfer (SWIFT) score, as a risk stratification tool, has moderate ability to predict patients at risk of ICU readmission. Objectives To describe findings following the incorporation of the SWIFT score into the discharge workflow of a medical ICU. Methods The study involved 5,293 consecutive patients discharged alive from the medical ICU of an academic medical center. The SWIFT score and associated percentage risk for readmission were incorporated into daily rounds for purpose of discharge decision-making. We measured readmission rates before and after implementation and observed changes in provider discharge decisions for individual patients after SWIFT discussions. Measurements and Main Results Baseline (n = 1,906) and implementation (n = 1,938) cohorts differed with respect to APACHE III scores (P = 0.03). In the implementation cohort, 26.2% of subjects had SWIFT scores greater than 15 and thus were predicted to have a higher risk of unplanned readmissions. In this high-risk group, 25% had SWIFT discussed in their discharge planning. There was modification of provider discharge decisions in 108 (30%) of cases in which the SWIFT was discussed. SWIFT score values above a prespecified cutoff of 15 were associated with physician tendency to prolong ICU stay or to discharge to a monitored setting (P &lt; 0.001). There was no difference in 24-hour or 7-day readmission rates between the baseline and implementation cohorts (1.9 vs. 2.4%, P = 0.24; 6.5 vs. 7.4%, P = 0.26, respectively) even after adjustment for severity of illness. Conclusions Using the SWIFT score as an adjunct to clinical judgment, physicians modified their discharge decisions in one-third of subjects. Introducing such tools into the discharge workflow may present change management challenges that limit the evaluation of their impact on readmission rates and other relevant ICU outcomes.

Purpose. To validate the use of a computer program for the automatic calculation of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, as compared to the gold standard of manual chart review.Materials and Methods. Adult admissions (age > 18 years) to the medical ICU with a length of stay greater than 24 hours were studied in the setting of an academic tertiary referral center. A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was performed using a derivation cohort to compare automatic calculation of the SOFA score to the gold standard of manual chart review. After critical appraisal of sources of disagreement, another analysis was performed using an independent validation cohort. Then, a prospective observational analysis was performed using an implementation of this computer program in AWARE Dashboard, which is an existing real-time patient EMR system for use in the ICU.Results. Good agreement between the manual and automatic SOFA calculations was observed for both the derivation (N=94) and validation (N=268) cohorts: 0.02 ± 2.33 and 0.29 ± 1.75 points, respectively. These results were validated in AWARE (N=60).Conclusion. This EMR-based automatic tool accurately calculates SOFA scores and can facilitate ICU decisions without the need for manual data collection. This tool can also be employed in a real-time electronic environment.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have had recent healthcare interventions prior to developing ALI/ARDS. OBJECTIVE: To determine the timing of ALI/ARDS onset in relation to hospital admission and other healthcare interventions. METHODS: We conducted a population-based observational cohort study with a validated electronic surveillance tool, and identified patients with possible ALI/ARDS among critically ill adults at Mayo Clinic hospitals that provide critical care services for Olmsted County, Minnesota, in 2006. Trained investigators independently reviewed electronic medical records and confirmed the presence and timing of ALI/ARDS based on the American-European consensus definition. RESULTS: Of 124 episodes of ALI in 118 patients, only 5 did not fulfill the ARDS criteria. The syndrome developed a median 30 hours (IQR 10–82 h) after hospital admission in 79 patients (67%). ARDS was present on admission in 39 patients (33%), of whom 14 had recent hospitalization, 6 were transferred from nursing homes, and 3 had recent out-patient contact (1 antibiotic prescription, 1 surgical intervention, and 1 chemotherapy). Only 16 ARDS patients (14%) did not have known recent contact with a healthcare system. Compared to ARDS on admission, hospital-acquired ARDS was more likely to occur in surgery patients (54% vs 15%, P < .001), and had longer adjusted hospital stay (mean difference 8.9 d, 95% CI 0.3–17.4, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: ARDS in the community most often develops either during hospitalization or in patients who recently had contact with a healthcare system. These findings have important implications for potential preventive strategies.