Gajić, Ognjen

ABSTRACT Purpose: The aim of the study is to evaluate whether serial assessment of shock severity can improve prognostication in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective cohort of 21,461 ICU patient admissions from 2014 to 2018. We assigned the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Shock Stage in each 4-h block during the first 24 h of ICU admission; shock was defined as SCAI Shock stage C, D, or E. In-hospital mortality was evaluated using logistic regression. Results: The admission SCAI Shock stages were as follows: A, 39.0%; B, 27.0%; C, 28.9%; D, 2.6%; and E, 2.5%. The SCAI Shock stage subsequently increased in 30.6%, and late-onset shock developed in 30.4%. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients who had shock on admission (11.9%) or late-onset shock (7.3%) versus no shock (4.3%). Persistence of shock predicted higher mortality (adjusted OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.06–1.13, for each ICU block with shock). The mean SCAI Shock stage had higher discrimination for in-hospital mortality than the admission or maximum SCAI Shock stage. Dynamic modeling of the SCAI Shock classification improved discrimination for in-hospital mortality (C-statistic = 0.64–0.71). Conclusions: Serial application of the SCAI Shock classification provides improved mortality risk stratification compared with a single assessment on admission, facilitating dynamic prognostication.

In this qualitative study, we explored perspectives of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and their families on the Get to Know Me board (GTKMB). Of the 46 patients approached, 38 consented to participate. Of the 66 family members approached, 60 consented to participate. Most patients (26, 89%) and family members (52, 99%) expressed that GTKMB was important in recognizing patient's humanity. Most patients (20, 68%) and families (39, 74%) said that it helped to build a better relationship with the provider team. 60% of patients and families commented that the GTKMB was used as a platform by providers to interact with them. Up to 45 (85%) of the family members supported specific contents of the GTKMB. In structured interviews (11 patients, 7 family members), participants additionally commented on ways providers used the GTKMB to communicate, support patient's personhood, and on caveats in interacting with GTKMB. Critically ill patients and families found the GTKMB helpful in preserving personhood of patient, fostering communication, and building relationships with clinicians.

Objectives Patient safety incident reporting in our institution’s intensive care units (ICUs) had fallen 30% below national benchmarks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Underreporting diminishes awareness of risks and precludes organizational learning from near misses. We aimed to increase the ICU number of patient safety incident reports by 30% from 27 to 35 reports/1000 patient-days without negatively impacting culture of safety as measured by patient-care staff surveys. Methods Single-institution prospective interventional study with 9 ICUs receiving a multifaceted intervention developed using quality improvement methodology during February–April 2022. Study intervention involved creation of patient safety peer-leadership role, feedback process, interactive dashboards for patient safety data, and education resources accessible via quick response codes. Primary outcome was patient safety incident reports/1000 patient-days. Intensive care unit patient-care staff culture of safety was assessed with surveys. Results Intensive care unit patient safety incident reporting increased by 48% after intervention (40 versus 27 reports/1000 patient-days [P = 0.136]). Near misses were the most common incident report. Intensive care unit patient-care staff ratings of patient safety did not change; 80% rated patient safety as good or better after intervention versus 78% at baseline (P = 0.465). However, significant improvement was observed for subcomponents related to learning culture and support for staff involved in patient safety incidents. Most reports (>80%) were submitted by nurses. Conclusions This multifaceted quality improvement intervention increased patient safety incident reporting in the ICUs. Increases in ratings of learning culture and support for staff underline the importance of a well-functioning patient safety incident reporting system in an institutional culture of safety.

Objectives To describe incidence and risk factors of loss of previous independent living through nonhome discharge or discharge home with health assistance in survivors of intensive care unit (ICU) admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Design Multicenter observational study including patients admitted to the ICU from January 2020 till June 30, 2021. Hypothesis We hypothesized that there is a high risk of nonhome discharge in patients surviving ICU admission due to COVID-19. Setting Data were included from 306 hospitals in 28 countries participating in the SCCM Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID-19 registry. Patients Previously independently living adult ICU survivors of COVID-19. Interventions None. Measurements and Main Results The primary outcome was nonhome discharge. Secondary outcome was the requirement of health assistance among patients who were discharged home. Out of 10 820 patients, 7101 (66%) were discharged alive; 3791 (53%) of these survivors lost their previous independent living status, out of those 2071 (29%) through nonhome discharge, and 1720 (24%) through discharge home requiring health assistance. In adjusted analyses, loss of independence on discharge among survivors was predicted by patient age ≥ 65 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.47-3.14, P < .0001), former and current smoking status (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.46, P = .003 and 1.60 (95% CI 1.18-2.16), P = .003, respectively), substance use disorder (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.12-2.06, P = .007), requirement for mechanical ventilation (aOR 4.17, 95% CI 3.69-4.71, P < .0001), prone positioning (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.38, P = .02), and requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.55-3.34, P < .0001). Conclusions More than half of ICU survivors hospitalized for COVID-19 are unable to return to independent living status, thereby imposing a significant secondary strain on health care systems worldwide.

ImportanceThe conflict in Ukraine has forced civilian hospitals with limited trauma and battlefield medicine experience to care for casualties of war, placing significant strain on the health care system. Using the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury (CERTAIN) program, a multimodal trauma critical care knowledge-exchange platform was created for clinicians practicing in these institutions.ObjectivesTo describe the development and implementation of the CERTAIN for Ukraine program and to evaluate the reach of this intervention, together with participant engagement and satisfaction.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis quality improvement study included clinicians caring for critically ill patients during the ongoing Ukrainian conflict who were part of a community developed using a messaging app. The program was implemented by a group of international trauma and critical care experts in collaboration with critical care leaders from the Shupyk National Healthcare University in Kyiv, Ukraine. This study evaluates data collected from the CERTAIN for Ukraine program from its launch on April 9, 2022, to August 31, 2022.InterventionsThe initiative comprised a longitudinal series of interactive tele-education sessions, a webpage containing the CERTAIN approach and current trauma critical care guidelines translated into Ukrainian and Russian, and a private messaging chat for asynchronous discussion.Main Outcomes and MeasuresParticipant engagement and satisfaction were tracked using multimedia analytics and a post-session survey.ResultsSince program launch, 838 participants have joined the messaging group, and 6 tele-education sessions have been delivered, with 1835 total views. The CERTAIN website has had 3527 visits, mainly from Ukraine (1378 [39%]) and the United States (1060 [30%]). Of the 74 completed postsession surveys, 65 respondents (88%) rated the course content excellent or very good, and 73 (99%) recommended it to others.Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this quality improvement study indicate that, using widely available and low-cost platforms, knowledge was shared rapidly and efficiently to a large community of clinicians practicing in a wartime environment with broad-based engagement and a high level of learner satisfaction.

AbstractStudy ObjectiveIn critically ill patients, adequacy of early antibiotic exposure has been incompletely evaluated. This study characterized factors associated with inadequate cefepime exposure in the first 24 h of critical illness.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingAcademic Medical Center.PatientsCritically ill adults treated with cefepime. Patients with acute kidney injury or treated with kidney replacement therapy or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were excluded.InterventionNone.MeasurementsA nonlinear mixed‐effects pharmacokinetic (PK) model was developed to estimate cefepime concentrations for each patient over time. The percentage of time the free drug concentration exceeded 8 mg/L during the first 24 h of therapy was calculated (%ƒT>8; appropriate for the susceptible breakpoint for Pseudomonas aeruginosa). Factors predictive of low %ƒT>8 were explored with multivariable regression.Main ResultsIn the 100 included patients, a one‐compartment PK model was developed with first‐order elimination with covariates for weight and estimated glomerular filtration rate based on creatinine and cystatin C (eGFRSCr‐CysC). The median (interquartile range) %ƒT>8 for cefepime in the first 24 h of therapy based on this model was 85% (66%, 100%). Less than 100% ƒT>8 during first 24 h of therapy occurred in 70 (70%) individuals. Lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (p = 0.032) and higher eGFRSCr‐CysC (p < 0.001) predicted a lower %ƒT>8. Central nervous system infection source was protective (i.e., associated with a higher %ƒT>8; p = 0.008).ConclusionsDuring early critical illness, cefepime concentrations were inadequate in a significant proportion of patients. Antimicrobial optimization is needed to improve the precision of pharmacotherapy in the critically ill patients.