Citations

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic. Methods We used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes. Results: Among the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles. Conclusions: Through applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.

Objectives: The objective of this derivation and validation study was to develop and validate a search strategy algorithm to detect patients who used professional interpreter services. Methods: We identified all adults who had at least one intensive care unit admission during their hospital stay across the Mayo Clinic Enterprise between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2020. Three random subsets of 100 patients were extracted from 60,268 patients to develop the search strategy algorithm. Two physician reviewers conducted gold standard manual chart review and any discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. These results were compared with the search strategy algorithm each time it was refined. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated during each phase by comparing the search strategy results to the reference gold standard for both derivation cohorts and the final validation cohort. Results: The first search strategy resulted in a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 89%. The second revised search strategy achieved a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 87%. The final version of the search strategy was applied to the validation subset and sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 89%, respectively. Conclusion: We derived and validated a search strategy algorithm to assess interpreter use among hospitalized patients. Using a search strategy algorithm with high sensitivity and specificity can reduce the time required to abstract data from the electronic medical records compared with manual data abstraction.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of health information technology (HIT) for early detection of patient deterioration on patient mortality and length of stay (LOS) in acute care hospital settings. Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from 1990 to January 19, 2021. Study Selection: We included studies that enrolled patients hospitalized on the floor, in the ICU, or admitted through the emergency department. Eligible studies compared HIT for early detection of patient deterioration with usual care and reported at least one end point of interest: hospital or ICU LOS or mortality at any time point. Data Extraction: Study data were abstracted by two independent reviewers using a standardized data extraction form. Data Synthesis: Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool data. Among the 30 eligible studies, seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 23 were pre-post studies. Compared with usual care, HIT for early detection of patient deterioration was not associated with a reduction in hospital mortality or LOS in the meta-analyses of RCTs. In the meta-analyses of pre-post studies, HIT interventions demonstrated a significant association with improved hospital mortality for the entire study cohort (odds ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.70–0.87]) and reduced hospital LOS overall. Conclusions: HIT for early detection of patient deterioration in acute care settings was not significantly associated with improved mortality or LOS in the meta-analyses of RCTs. In the meta-analyses of pre-post studies, HIT was associated with improved hospital mortality and LOS; however, these results should be interpreted with caution. The differences in patient outcomes between the findings of the RCTs and pre-post studies may be secondary to confounding caused by unmeasured improvements in practice and workflow over time.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic. Methods We used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes. Results Among the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles. Conclusions Through applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.

Abstract Background: Lung-protective ventilation is often used in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure, including those without acute respiratory distress syndrome. While disparities exist in the delivery of critical care based on gender, race, and insurance status, it is unknown whether there are disparities in the use of lung-protective ventilation. The objective of our study was to determine whether gender-, racial / ethnic-, or insurance status-based disparities exist in the use of lung-protective ventilation for critically ill mechanically ventilated patients in the United States (U.S.).Methods: This was a secondary data analysis of the U.S. Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study, a prospective multi-center cohort study conducted from 2010 - 2012. The dependent variable of interest was the proportion of patients receiving tidal volume > 8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW). The independent variables of interest were gender, insurance status, and race / ethnicity. Results: Our primary analysis included 1,595 mechanically ventilated patients from 59 intensive care units (ICUs) in the U.S. Women were more likely to receive tidal volumes > 8 ml/kg PBW than men (odds ratio [OR] = 3.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.58 – 4.09), though this relationship was substantially weakened after adjusting for gender differences in height (OR = 1.26 95% CI = 0.94 – 1.71). The underinsured were significantly more likely to receive tidal volume > 8 ml/kg PBW than the insured in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.54, 95% confidence interval = 1.16 – 2.04). The prescription of > 8 ml/kg PBW tidal volume did not differ by racial or ethnic categories. Conclusions: In this prospective nationwide cohort of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, women and the underinsured were less likely than their comparators to receive lung protective ventilation, with no apparent differences based on race / ethnicity alone. Differences in height between men and women do not fully explain this disparity. Future research should evaluate whether implicit bias affects tidal volume choice and other management decisions in critical care.