Citations

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

Introduction Sepsis is a global health priority with nearly 50 million cases annually. Cardiovascular dysfunction is common, frequently manifesting as hypotension that persists despite fluid resuscitation. Most affected patients require the use of intravenous (IV) vasoactive agents, typically necessitating intensive care unit (ICU)-level monitoring, invasive interventions and contributing substantially to healthcare costs. Midodrine, an oral alpha-1 agonist approved for orthostatic hypotension, has increasingly been used off-label as a vasopressor-sparing (reducing IV vasopressor use) strategy in sepsis, despite limited and inconsistent evidence. This pragmatic, randomised, open-label trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of midodrine in patients with sepsis-associated hypotension. We hypothesise that, compared with standard care, midodrine administration will reduce the duration of IV vasopressor use. Methods and analysis A total of 308 adult patients with sepsis-associated hypotension will be enrolled (154 per arm). The intervention group will, in addition to standard of care, receive enteral midodrine 10 mg three times daily. Outcomes will be ascertained pragmatically via electronic health record-based data retrieval and adjudicated by research coordinators blinded to treatment assignment. The primary outcome is time alive and off IV vasopressors in the first 28 days (in hours) after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include cumulative vasopressor exposure; use and duration of central venous access; cumulative fluid balance over the first 48 hours and up to 7 days of ICU stay; ICU and hospital length of stay; and ICU-, hospital-, and organ support-free days through day 28. Safety outcomes include adverse events potentially attributable to midodrine during hospitalisation including acute kidney injury. Primary analyses will follow an intention-to-treat framework, including all randomised participants according to their assigned treatment groups. Primary and secondary outcomes will be compared using a van Elteren test stratified by randomisation factors. A predefined secondary Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome will provide complementary estimates of treatment effect. Safety outcomes will be summarised descriptively without formal between-arm hypothesis testing. Ethics and dissemination The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved this protocol and required written informed consent from all participants (IRB# 24–0 00 121). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and international conference presentations. Trial registration number NCT06319248 .

Introduction Patient dehumanization when caring for critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is commonplace. The Get to Know Me board (GTKMB) has been identified as a valuable tool for promoting humanized care and communication in the ICU; however, its implementation is highly variable. This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators influencing consistent implementation of the GTKMB in the ICU. Materials and methods We conducted multidisciplinary focus groups via teleconference with ICU clinicians at a large quaternary care academic medical center. A thematic content analysis was performed to identify key themes and concepts related to GTKMB implementation. Results Thirty-eight clinicians participated across six focus groups, including 10 nurses, 7 physicians, 6 advanced practice providers, 5 rehabilitation therapists (allied health clinicians), 1 respiratory therapist and 1 social worker. Major themes related to barriers and facilitators of GTKMB implementation included, (1) identifying appropriate patients and optimal timing for completing the GTKMB, (2) logistical challenges such as access to the board, visibility and unclear responsibility for completion, (3) the importance of clinician role modeling supporting the board completion, and (4) opportunities to improve the design and functionality of the board itself. Conclusion Although clinicians recognize the GTKMB as a meaningful tool to support humanized care in the ICU, inconsistent implementation limits its potential impact. This study highlights several key barriers and facilitators to its use. Future efforts should focus on targeted quality improvement initiatives to enhance consistent completion and integration of the GTKMB into ICU practice.

The intensive care unit (ICU) is a highly disease-focused environment where patients are often perceived primarily through their diagnoses rather than as individuals. The Get-To-Know-Me Board (GTKMB) was introduced as a humanizing tool to highlight patients’ personal attributes and foster person-centered care. Despite being found valuable in supporting humanized caring and fostering communication, completion rates at our institution remained low. Through a stakeholder-driven quality improvement initiative, we tested sequential interventions including reminders and checklists, visual magnets, and educational pamphlets to improve and increase the use of the GTKMB. These measures produced modest gains, with reminders and checklists yielding the most notable improvement. Barriers to using the GKTMB included unclear ownership, timing, and inconsistent integration into workflow. Our experience underscores both the promise and limitations of humanizing interventions in critical care. Sustainable implementation requires multidisciplinary buy-in and integration into daily routines. Whereas humanizing tools such as the GTKMB should be evaluated for their impact on meaningful patient outcomes, such outcomes are not clearly established; therefore, we embark on the necessary first step of a method of implementation.

Background Adherence to evidence-based care processes and patient outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) can be influenced by staffing and resource availability. We aimed to evaluate if there is a weekend effect on adherence to evidence-based care processes, and hospitalization outcomes and whether a checklist implementation could mitigate potential differences. Methods Post hoc analysis of the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury (CERTAIN) study dataset collected before and after checklist implementation in 34 ICUs across 15 countries (2013-2017). Admission days were classified as ‘weekend/holidays’ or ‘weekdays’ according to local work schedules and public holidays. The primary outcome was the omission of 10 evidence-based care processes addressed in the checklist. Mortality and length of stay differences between weekend/holiday and weekday admissions were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Results 4256 patients contributed 1141 weekend versus 3501 weekday observation days pre-intervention, and 2014 versus 6507 post-intervention. Pre-intervention, peptic ulcer prophylaxis was omitted more frequently on weekends/holidays than weekdays (adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 0.58 [95%–confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.88), whereas head-of-bed elevation was omitted more often on weekdays than on weekends/holidays (aRR, 3.17 [1.14-8.86]). Post-intervention, peptic ulcer prophylaxis omission rates became similar (aRR, 1.03 [0.68-1.56], but head-of-bed elevation became omitted more often on weekends than on weekdays (aRR, 0.63 [0.45-0.88]). Post-intervention, oral care was omitted more frequently on weekends/holidays than in weekdays (aRR, 0.63 [0.45-0.9]), and central catheter removal was more frequent on weekdays than in weekends/holidays (aRR, 1.11 [1.02-1.21]). No significant differences in mortality or length of stay were found. Conclusion A weekend effect influenced adherence to some care processes. While checklist implementation improved overall adherence, some disparities diminished, while new ones emerged. Organizational, cultural, and temporal factors should be further studied to optimize care delivery across all times and settings. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT01973829