Developing a team performance framework for the intensive care unit*

To assess the impact of delay in emergency department (ED) on outcome of critically ill patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU). Outcome was defined as hospital mortality and as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 6 months after intensive care assessed by the 15D measure. The 15D is a generic, 15-dimensional, standardized measure of HRQoL. We hypothesized that prolonged stay in the ED is related to worse outcome. A prospective follow-up cohort study in university hospital. All consecutive 1675 patients admitted to the MICU between July 2002 and June 2004. The 15D questionnaire was mailed to all patients alive at 6 months after admission. Of all MICU patients, 64% were admitted from ED. The mean length of stay in the ED was 6.2 h (95%CI 5.9-6.5 h). The hospital mortality rate was 24.4% (20.0% in the ED vs. 33.0% in the non-ED cohort, P < 0.001) and it was associated with higher age and degree of physiological derangement at admission. Neither the length of ED stay was associated with hospital mortality (P = 0.82) nor with HRQoL at 6 months after MICU admission (P = 0.34). Altogether, HRQoL at 6 months was significantly lower compared with the age- and sex-matched general population (P < 0.001). In a university hospital, the length of ED stay was not associated with the outcome of critically ill medical patients. However, we feel that the effect of ED treatment and delay on outcome and outcome prediction in the critically ill patients deserves further evaluation.

How decisions are made and communication is handled are essential to ensuring a good outcome.In the case of Scardoni v Hawryluck,1 Mrs H was an 81-year-old woman with advanced Alzheimer disease, cardiovascular illness, and septic shock whose family and physician could not agree on goals for care, requiring that a legal decision be made regarding the level of care to be provided. Over time and after much discussion, the multidisciplinary team on the intensive care unit (ICU) reached a consensus that intensive care for Mrs H would not improve her condition. So it was decided that after Mrs H was stepped down to a general medical unit, should an infection or respiratory distress develop, she would not be returned to the ICU. The attending ICU physician informed the family that instead of ICU care, “the hospital would offer her palliative care: painkillers and sedatives to keep her comfortable while her afflictions took their course.”2 In this particular case, the patient’s family challenged the health care team’s recommendations and insisted that their mother be readmitted to the ICU so that aggressive life-sustaining treatment would continue.This case, although Canadian, is relevant to ICU settings throughout North America. The purpose of this discussion is not to provide an in-depth ethical analysis, but rather to use the case of Mrs H to characterize one type of health care situation that clinical ethicists could help facilitate. Medical recommendations such as those involved in the care of Mrs H are made to prevent the “revolving door” patient, who according to ICU teams will receive no medical benefit if returned to the ICU. Decisions not to readmit are euphemistically referred to by some ICU staff as the “one-way ticket out of ICU” or “celestial transfer.” Such language shared between colleagues reflects a coping strategy, a “gallows humor,” intended to manage difficult feelings like sadness, anger, grief, sympathy, or moral distress. Cases like that of Mrs H are of particular concern to critical care nursing. Research has indicated that moral distress, a significant contributing factor to burnout, is encountered by ICU nurses when the care they are providing to a patient is regarded as futile.3It is not uncommon for hospital-based clinical ethicists to receive a request for consultation when disputes regarding similar recommendations for care arise between substitute decision makers and the ICU treatment team. These cases can lead to moral distress because of commonly held opinions among team members that futile treatment is being provided. Although staff can provide many life-sustaining treatments to such a patient, ethical questions often arise during the patient’s stay in the ICU. What ought to happen when an ICU team decides that a patient should be transferred to a general medical unit to receive comfort measures only, with no readmission to the ICU? Although teams discuss the practical questions about what can be done, the ethical questions about what ought to be done are sometimes not as clear. The following discussion explores how clinical ethicists can provide valuable assistance with the kinds of ethical challenges these situations customarily present. Particular emphasis will be placed on working within a process-driven, interdisciplinary framework that maintains a communication-oriented approach to ethical decision making.Clinical ethics is a relatively new field, and the role and purpose of clinical ethicists can vary somewhat according to the particular health care setting. For the purpose of this discussion, the authors describe the knowledge, skills, and activities of clinical ethicists through their review of relevant literature as well as their own training and experiences as staff clinical ethicists at 2 acute care settings in Ontario, Canada.Greater legal clarity or legislative measures to specifically address conflicts that arise over withdrawal or withholding of treatment for terminally ill patients are required, according to at least one legal expert. Current Canadian law, according to this same scholar, leaves doctors, patients and their families in a “grey zone” as to who should have ultimate authority on such decisions.4 The daily reality in most North American ICUs is that this gray zone persists—for better or worse. Although hospitals attempt to provide guidelines for addressing conflicts such as the one involving Mrs H, it is the quality of communication and relationship within the interdisciplinary team and between the treating team and the patient’s family that has a marked influence on decision making.5–7 In most cases similar to this one, consensus about level of care is first achieved by the interdisciplinary team, and a subsequent agreement is reached between the treatment team and the patient’s substitute decision maker and family. However, when agreement cannot be reached because of irreconcilable notions pertaining to what constitutes benefit to the patient and what constitutes harm, the results can be uncertain, stressful, and most unsatisfactory for both the health professionals involved and the patient’s family. This combination of an unfortunate turn of events for the patient, sharing of bad news with family members, and the recommendation for care outside of the ICU is a juncture of decision making at which conflict can occur and ethical challenges are most apparent to members of the interdisciplinary team.8,9Much has been written about the difficulties in communication within the ICU and how this affects patient care. Considerable evidence indicates that communication between the ICU team, patients, and patients’ families can be inadequate, leading to conflict and a possible long-term effect on the patient’s family.6,8,10,11 In one study,8 46% of families who had a loved one die in the ICU reported conflict over decisions to withdraw or withhold life-support measures. These family members also reported conflict over the manner in which staff communicated with or behaved toward them. The authors of that study8 cited family members who felt pressured by staff to “hasten their loved one’s death because they placed a burden on valued resources.” The importance of communication between treatment teams and patients and patients’ families cannot be overstated. In addressing the difficulties and deficiencies that have been identified, 2 experts concluded, “communication with caregivers is consistently identified as the most important and least achieved factor in patient/family satisfaction surveys.”12Intensive care is primarily intended to provide maximum benefit to those patients who are likely to recover from their infirmity or trauma.13 When the interdisciplinary team is not clearly communicating ethical considerations as well as the criteria they are using to determine the effectiveness or success of the treatment plan, patients’ families may develop erroneous expectations that life-sustaining interventions will continue to be offered.6 At the same time as a loved one is receiving ICU care with a grim prognosis, families are struggling to come to terms with impending loss. Family functioning or experience in coping with loss,14 unrealistic expectations regarding health outcome, within a societal context of diverse religious or cultural beliefs, can markedly influence families’ decision making about end-of-life care. Such formidable contributing factors further emphasize that effective communication strategies, as well as an appropriate level of sensitivity, ought to be used in ICUs when dealing with patients’ families.11Team communication, in particular communication between disciplines, also has proven problematic in decisions about end-of-life care in the ICU. Critical care nurses have cited difficulties in communication and decision making within interdisciplinary ICU teams. Ferrand et al15 reported that 75% of the nursing staff who participated believed that “collaboration was inadequate during decision making” despite general agreement that such team collaboration is necessary and desired. In another study,16 about one-third of the ICU nurses who participated felt “excluded by physicians from patient care decisions and felt their exclusion to be a detriment to patient care.”In terms of the burdens carried in making decisions about end-of-life care, some evidence suggests that physicians and nurses experience equal burdens. Physicians experience the burdens associated with having to make these decisions, and nurses feel the burden of having to carry out care decisions made by someone else.17 Given the shared burdens that members of the interdisciplinary team face, as well as the reported difficulties in end-of-life care decision making in the ICU, ensuring effective communication is a key feature of high-quality patient care.7 The following discussion is intended to demonstrate how clinical ethicists can be supportive of such strategies for effective communication and decision making.Medical recommendations like those pertaining to the care of patients such as Mrs H are based on best-practice standards of care and are informed by ethical principles like beneficence, nonmaleficence, and autonomy. Continued life-sustaining support in situations where benefit is in question can be regarded as futile, a concept with inherent ethical challenges. As Weijer et al18 point out, the values inherent in medical futility arguments often confuse treatment considered ineffective and treatment that will be effective but will ultimately result in a controversial outcome such as permanent unconsciousness. A team’s decision to not readmit a patient for ICU care can be an attempt to address futility based on controversial outcomes that the team may perceive as causing more harm for the patient than good. Poignantly stated, “if the welfare of the patient is the whole purpose of providing treatment and if that treatment brings needless suffering, then the whole purpose of medicine is defeated.”19 Although the concept of futility in ICU care is a subject worthy of ethical debate, it will not be the focus of this discussion. Rather, the subject of this discussion is the role of clinical ethicists in helping decision makers address ethical considerations such as futility.The results of inadequate communication, misunderstandings, or disagreements arising from divergent views about what is beneficent and the institutional realities surrounding resource allocation can be seen in the moral distress and subsequent moral residue experienced by both the patient’s family members and the health care staff involved. Moral distress occurs when a person can identify the ethically appropriate course of action, but does not feel able to carry this action forward because of barriers that may include lack of resources, legal limits, institutional obstacles, or imbalances in power, for example. Effects of moral distress on an individual can include feelings of anger, frustration, anxiety, or depression.20 Moral residue can be encountered when “deeply held beliefs, values and principles” are set aside at the expense of one’s personal sense of integrity.21 For families of patients, moral residue can manifest in lifelong memories about difficult health care experiences.The experience of moral distress and moral residue are of particular importance to critical care nursing. Some evidence indicates a relationship between an ICU care nurse’s perception of providing futile care, inadequate communication about the care plan within the interdisciplinary team, and the incidence of moral distress, emotional exhaustion, and burnout.3,16,22 Cases like that of Mrs H can present these kinds of challenges to nurses providing care at the bedside. The discussion also highlights how clinical ethicists can assist interdisciplinary teams in addressing ethical challenges that can lead to moral distress.Finally, the ethical climate within our health care settings is shaped by the organizational values inherent in hospital policies, approaches to handling conflict, allocation of human and material resources, the daily-lived experience of staff providing care, and those to whom care is provided.23,24 Economic constraints, resource allocation difficulties, and staffing shortages contribute to the moral climate of health settings, the moral distress of staff, and burnout among health care providers.25,26In cases such as that of Mrs H, the ethical challenges are not just about treatment requests considered inadvisable but also about scarce resources like ventilator-equipped beds in ICU settings. In the minds of some families, the need for an ICU bed is the primary reason that palliative measures are now being recommended. When conflict surrounds decisions about level of care, it is the bedside ICU nurse who fields the questions, concerns, and emotions expressed by patients’ families.It is through such challenging decision making, in which no agreement is reached, that the moral climate is regrettably defined for all persons with a stake in the decision. However oppressive these disagreements feel to both health care professionals and patients’ family members, most often the disagreements, ironically, do not result from a lack of good intentions on either side of the debate. Rather, these circumstances reflect the complex ethical challenges that are inherent in contemporary health care settings. Clinical ethicists can be an important resource to health care teams, patients, and patients’ families in addressing these difficult challenges.Clinical ethicists who provide consultative services may be requested by the ICU team when conflicts such as the one surrounding the planning of Mrs H’s level of care arise. What are the characteristics, skills, and knowledge that make clinical ethicists a useful resource in helping to address conflict over decisions about level of care for stable but critically ill ICU patients?Clinical ethicists come from a diverse background of training: clinical and academic experiences that include but are not limited to medicine, nursing, social work, theology, philosophy, and anthropology. Most clinical ethicists have advanced academic degrees and/or training in clinical ethics. Despite this diversity in background, clinical ethicists engage in common functions: consultative services, research, education and the development of policies pertaining to patient care and organizational ethics.27–29Clinical ethicists are trained to view ethical problems within an interdisciplinary health care environment whose primary commitment should always be to provide the best patient care possible. Patient care and goals for care are best understood through the wishes, beliefs, and values of the patient and the patient’s family. The approach taken by clinical ethicists in providing consultation is to model interdisciplinary collaboration and effective communication with patients and their families, with the objective of enhancing ethical decision making.28–30In effect, clinical ethicists in cases such as the one involving Mrs H act as facilitators of communication and decision making about goals for care, while directing attention to the ethical considerations underlying such decisions. Generally, clinical ethicists can help clarify differences in the way ethical considerations such as sanctity or quality of life are valued on the basis of religious, personal, or cultural values. Some evidence suggests that ethics consultation generally has been useful in preventing or resolving conflicts, and in reducing the incidence of prolonged controversial treatment.31,32 Current trends in the training and education of clinical ethicists have emphasized skills, knowledge, and expertise better suited to provide ethics support in real time as dilemmas and conflict around decisions related to patient care unfold.28What is particularly important about the approach used by most clinical ethicists is the emphasis placed on fair and just processes for decisions of such importance and consequence in an ICU environment.In cases such as the one involving Mrs H, it is not just what decision ought to be made that is of interest to clinical ethicists, but if and why a particular decision is ethically defensible. If so, to whom is it ethically defensible? How ought discussions and conflicts be managed? These questions raise ethical concerns about justice, fairness, and a reasoned approach to decisions of such consequence. Ethical consideration must also be given to the moral climate, how people feel treated, and the concerns and opinions of key persons with a stake in the decision making, with overarching consideration given to trust in the process used to make such important decisions. Therefore clinical ethicists are as concerned with procedural fairness as they are with outcome when assisting with ethically challenging situations in health care settings.Principal aspects of procedural fairness are as follows: that the process for decision making be as transparent as possible to all involved; that concerns of key persons with a stake in the decision making be considered; that the reasons or rationale behind decisions can be understood and defended; that people responsible for decisions be held accountable; and that in the event disagreement occurs, decisions can be reviewed, taking into account the concerns of those who disagree.33 Process-driven approaches to decision making or to resolving conflict used by clinical ethicists are dependent on using frameworks to guide communication. Such frameworks for communication are not just ethically defensible; they have been shown empirically to be part of good practice standards in ICU settings.6,11,34 Lilly et al35(pS398) found that using a standardized framework for communication resulted in health care providers seeing decision making as a “process rather than as an event”—an attribute consistent with principles for ethical decision making.An example of such a framework to guide communication is described by Lautrette et al,34 who identify such attributes as timeliness, opportunities for the patient’s family to speak, use of appropriate and sensitive language, and ensuring that the setting is private and comfortable. In addition to these attributes, clinical ethicists would include discussion of the values in conflict and ethical obligations that underscore decision making.Frameworks for communication appear well supported in the literature anyway, so what makes the involvement of clinical ethicists of added benefit?Despite advances in implementing communication strategies in many settings, improvement in general is needed in managing communication, enhancing understanding, and meeting needs of ICU patients and their families.6,8,10,11 Furthermore, Sherwin36 believes that communication frameworks and hospital policies can be used coercively, to enforce a particular outcome, if those who lead these discussions or who adhere to policies are not reflecting on personal biases, institutional pressures, and ethical considerations.Clinical ethicists act as facilitators, helping to raise important ethical questions, model effective communication, and model ethical decision making by using teachable moments to heighten the awareness and understanding of the ethical considerations in each case. Within most health care settings, necessary and unavoidable imbalances in power are present between various persons who have a stake in the decision making. Clinical ethicists assist in discussing the values that underlie decisions of such importance, making these transparent to and understood by key involved parties. They model the principles of procedural fairness. Inherently challenging decisions about level of care, as in the case of Mrs H, are often met with challenging feelings and opinions, making fairness and ethical reflection more important than less to involved parties.Clinical ethicists advocate for policies and practices that reduce coercive consequences that can arise when members of the ICU treatment team, patients, or patients’ family members feel overruled or dismissed. In conducting an ethics consultation, the clinical ethicist leads discussions with the interdisciplinary team members about ethical considerations that contribute to moral distress, for example, the conflict in the way benefit and harm associated with a particular therapy or level of care are understood. In most instances, the clinical ethicist must ensure that concerns raised by members of the interdisciplinary team and concerns expressed by patients’ family members are shared and considered. This process is handled in an open and transparent manner. In creating an opportunity through the consultative process for the interdisciplinary team to address concerns, related to both areas of conflict and moral distress, clinical ethicists are also capitalizing on valuable teachable moments in which knowledge about ethics and decision making can be enhanced. As Kälvemark Sporrong et al37(p835) concluded, “Ethical competence is a key factor in preventing or reducing moral distress.”We have found that consultation on an individual case often helps treatment teams identify preventative strategies to reduce or avoid conflict and to engage in more timely discussion about ethics the next time a complex care situation arises. Such measures are necessary in creating a moral climate in which discussion about ethics in daily practice can be supported and thus reducing the effects or incidence of moral distress. The potential exists for all members of the interdisciplinary ICU team, including the most responsible physician, to be so engaged in ethical reflection and decision making on challenging cases. Clinical ethicists model skills of effective communication, ethical reflection, and decision making as well as principles of procedural fairness within the consultative process that they facilitate.We are not suggesting that effective communication, procedural fairness, ethical reflection, and decision making are deficient whenever clinical ethicists are not involved in such cases. In reality, complex and ethically challenging cases occur routinely in ICU settings, most often without the involvement of clinical ethicists. What is being proposed is that clinical ethicists should be seen as a valuable resource for addressing challenging cases in the ICU. Better understanding is needed about the role of clinical ethicists and the kinds of assistance they can provide.In most cases, the ICU team and patient’s family agree on recommendations that comfort measures be provided on a medical intermediate care unit or a palliative care unit for a stable but critically ill patient. However, as in the case of Mrs H, these decisions may be met with considerable emotion from the patient’s family and with differences of opinion about benefit and the appropriate level of care. We think that clinical ethicists can be a valuable resource when challenging cases arise. By providing consultation, clinical ethicists can model effective communication, ethical reflection, and decision making, while following principles of procedural fairness, all of which are key elements to upholding ethics in daily practice and are of particular importance when conflict occurs about level of care in the ICU.The following are practical considerations for critical care nurses:

Postoperative Bedside Critical Care of Thoracic Surgery Patients.

Psychiatric management of Patients in intensive care units.

BackgroundIn patients with severe acute brain injury (SABI) admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) outcome is often uncertain. Physicians have to decide on continuation or withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST) in the first weeks. However, long-term neurological outcomes rarely reach the ICU team, limiting the opportunity to learn from decisions. This study aimed to assess the availability of long-term neurological outcome data and from which sources this could be retrieved.MethodsThis single-center retrospective observational study included all ICU survivors with SABI between January first and December 31st 2022. Patient characteristics and neurological outcome data were extracted from the patient records. Neurological outcome was assessed using the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) within 6 months after admission.ResultsA total of 65 patients were included, the median Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score at admission was 6 [IQR 4-7], the most common admission diagnosis was subarachnoid hemorrhage (34%). The mean ICU stay was 8 days (SD 8) and hospital stay 38 days (SD 29). Outcome data could be retrieved from neurology or neurosurgery outpatient clinic notes in 54% of patients, in 12% from the post-ICU clinic and in 2% from other hospitals, rehabilitation facilities and nursing homes. Mortality within 6 months was 26%. A favorable GOSE score (≥ 5) was found in 18 patients (28%), an unfavorable score in 42 patients (64%), and in 5 patients (8%) no outcome could be determined.ConclusionsFunctional recovery outcomes could be extracted from the patient records in nearly all ICU survivors with SABI. However, these outcomes were mostly identified from outpatient clinic notes from the neurology and neurosurgery department and it is uncertain whether these outcomes reach ICU physicians. A clear feedback loop is needed, to ensure ICU teams can learn from long-term patient trajectories and improve future patient care.

To present graphical procedures for prospectively monitoring outcomes in the intensive care unit. Observational study: risk-adjusted control chart analysis of a case series. Tertiary referral adult intensive care unit: Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. A total of 3398 intensive care unit admissions from January 1, 1995, to January 1, 1998. Risk-adjusted process control charting procedures for continuous monitoring of intensive care unit outcomes are proposed as quality management tools. A modified Shewhart p chart and cumulative sum process control chart, using the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III model mortality prediction for risk adjustment, are presented. The risk-adjusted p chart summarizes performance at arbitrary intervals and plots observed against predicted mortality rate to detect large changes in risk-adjusted mortality. The risk-adjusted cumulative sum procedure is a likelihood-based scoring method that adjusts for estimated risk of death, accumulating evidence from outcomes of all previous patients. It formally tests the hypothesis of a change in the odds of death. In this application, we detected a decrease from above to predicted risk-adjusted mortality. This was temporally related to increased senior staffing levels and enhanced ongoing multidisciplinary review of practice, quality improvement, and educational activities. Formulas and analyses are provided as appendices.

Resuscitation highlights in 2011

Accurate patient outcome prediction in the intensive care unit (ICU) can potentially lead to more effective and efficient patient care. Deep learning models are capable of learning from data to accurately predict patient outcomes, but they typically require large amounts of data and computational resources. Transfer learning (TL) can help in scenarios where data and computational resources are scarce by leveraging pretrained models. While TL has been widely used in medical imaging and natural language processing, it has been rare in electronic health record (EHR) analysis. Furthermore, domain adaptation (DA) has been the most common TL method in general, whereas inductive transfer learning (ITL) has been rare. To the best of our knowledge, DA and ITL have never been studied in-depth in the context of EHR-based ICU patient outcome prediction. This study investigated DA, as well as rarely researched ITL, in EHR-based ICU patient outcome prediction under simulated, varying levels of data scarcity. Two patient cohorts were used in this study: (1) eCritical, a multicenter ICU data from 55,689 unique admission records from 48,672 unique patients admitted to 15 medical-surgical ICUs in Alberta, Canada, between March 2013 and December 2019, and (2) Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III, a single-center, publicly available ICU data set from Boston, Massachusetts, acquired between 2001 and 2012 containing 61,532 admission records from 46,476 patients. We compared DA and ITL models with baseline models (without TL) of fully connected neural networks, logistic regression, and lasso regression in the prediction of 30-day mortality, acute kidney injury, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Random subsets of training data, ranging from 1% to 75%, as well as the full data set, were used to compare the performances of DA and ITL with the baseline models at various levels of data scarcity. Overall, the ITL models outperformed the baseline models in 55 of 56 comparisons (all P values <.001). The DA models outperformed the baseline models in 45 of 56 comparisons (all P values <.001). ITL resulted in better performance than DA in terms of the number of times and the margin with which it outperformed the baseline models. In 11 of 16 cases (8 of 8 for ITL and 3 of 8 for DA), TL models outperformed baseline models when trained using 1% data subset. TL-based ICU patient outcome prediction models are useful in data-scarce scenarios. The results of this study can be used to estimate ICU outcome prediction performance at different levels of data scarcity, with and without TL. The publicly available pretrained models from this study can serve as building blocks in further research for the development and validation of models in other ICU cohorts and outcomes.

Develop a scoring system that can assess the management of septic shock by individuals and teams. Retrospective review of videotapes of critical care house staff managing a standardized simulation of septic shock. Academic medical center; videotapes were made in a recreated intensive care unit environment using a high-fidelity patient simulator. Residents in medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology who had participated in the intensive care unit rotation. The septic patient was managed by the intensive care unit team in a graded manner with interns present for the first 10 mins and more senior-level help arriving after 10 mins. The intern was graded separately for the first 10 mins, and the team was graded for the entire 35-min performance. Both technical and nontechnical scoring systems were developed to rate the management of septic shock. Technical scores are based on guidelines and principles of managing septic shock. Team leadership, communication, contingency planning, and resource utilization were addressed by the nontechnical rating. Technical scores were calculated for both interns and teams; nontechnical scores applied only to the team. Of 16 technical checklist items, interns completed a mean of 7 with a range of 1.5-11. Team technical ratings had a mean of 9.3 with a range of 3.3-13. Nontechnical scores showed similar intergroup variability with a mean of 26 and a range of 10-35. Technical and nontechnical scores showed a modest correlation (r = .40, p = .05). Interrater reliabilities for intern and team technical scores were both r = .96 and for nontechnical scores r = .88. Objective measures of both knowledge-based and behavioral skills pertinent to the management of septic shock were made. Scores identified both adequate and poor levels of performance. Such assessments can be used to benchmark clinical skills of individuals and groups over time and may allow the identification of interventions that improve clinical effectiveness in sepsis management.

BackgroundThere is little data surrounding the survival of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are admitted to the critical care unit with exacerbation of symptoms. We conducted a study to measure the in-hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) outcomes of patients admitted with COPD exacerbation, and identified the related prognostic factors.MethodWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who were admitted to the adult ICU between January 2006 and July 2011 for COPD exacerbation in King Abdulaziz National Guard Hospital, Al-Hasa, Saudi Arabia.ResultsDuring the study period, a total of 119 patients were admitted to the ICU with acute respiratory failure attributed to COPD exacerbation. The mean age was 72 ± 13 years, and 44 (37%) were females. The main cause of respiratory failure was infection, which occurred in 102 (86%) patients. Thirty-nine (33%) of the admitted patients were mechanically ventilated, and the median duration was 2.6 (1–42) days. The median lengths of the ICU and hospital stays were 3 (1–40) and 9 (2–43) days, respectively. The ICU mortality was 6%, and hospital mortality was 11%. Low Glasgow Coma Scale on admission, intubation, duration of mechanical ventilation, current smoking, tracheostomy, cardiopulmonary arrest, and the development of acute renal failure were associated with higher hospital mortality.ConclusionEarly ICU and hospital mortality is low for COPD patients who have been admitted to the ICU with exacerbation. Low Glasgow Coma Scale scores on admission, intubation, prolonged use of mechanical ventilation, and the development of acute renal failure were identified as risk factors associated with increased hospital mortality.

Previous studies have examined the links between continuity of care and patient outcomes, but little is known about this relationship in acute care pediatric settings. The aim of this study was to examine the associations between continuity in nursing care (CINC), defined as fewer nurses caring for a patient, and patient outcomes in a pediatric intensive care unit (ICU). A secondary analysis of prospectively collected data was carried out. A total of 332 patients admitted to the medical/surgical ICU at Children's Hospital Boston from March 2004 to December 2012 were included in the study. The mean (SD) Continuity of Care Index score was 0.4 (0.1). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that CINC was associated with a longer ICU stay (P < .001) and longer ventilator days (P = .01) but was not associated with the occurrence of adverse events and ICU-acquired infections. When a match between nurse expertise and mortality risk was included as interaction term, CINC was significantly associated with fewer nurse-sensitive adverse events (P = .05). In this study, sicker patients were more likely to receive more CINC. Continuity in providers may have the potential to affect patient outcomes. More studies are needed to explore this relationship.

Exploring Entrustment: Housestaff Autonomy and Patient Readmission

BackgroundInsight into COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) patient characteristics, rates and risks of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and associated outcomes as well as any regional discrepancies is critical in this pandemic for individual case management and overall resource planning.Methods and findingsElectronic searches were performed for reports through May 1 2020 and reports on COVID-19 ICU admissions and outcomes were included using predefined search terms. Relevant data was subsequently extracted and pooled using fixed or random effects meta-analysis depending on heterogeneity. Study quality was assessed by the NIH tool and heterogeneity was assessed by I2 and Q tests. Baseline patient characteristics, ICU and IMV outcomes were pooled and meta-analyzed. Pooled odds ratios (pOR) were calculated for clinical features against ICU, IMV mortality. Subgroup analysis was carried out based on patient regions. A total of twenty-eight studies comprising 12,437 COVID-19 ICU admissions from seven countries were meta-analyzed. Pooled ICU admission rate was 21% [95% CI 0.12–0.34] and 69% of cases needed IMV [95% CI 0.61–0.75]. ICU and IMV mortality were 28.3% [95% CI 0.25–0.32], 43% [95% CI 0.29–0.58] and ICU, IMV duration was 7.78 [95% CI 6.99–8.63] and 10.12 [95% CI 7.08–13.16] days respectively. Besides confirming the significance of comorbidities and clinical findings of COVID-19 previously reported, we found the major correlates with ICU mortality were IMV [pOR 16.46, 95% CI 4.37–61.96], acute kidney injury (AKI) [pOR 12.47, 95% CI 1.52–102.7], and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [pOR 6.52, 95% CI 2.66–16.01]. Subgroup analyses confirm significant regional discrepancies in outcomes.ConclusionsThis is a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of COVID-19 ICU and IMV cases and associated outcomes. The significant association of AKI, ARDS and IMV with mortality has implications for ICU resource planning for AKI and ARDS as well as suggesting the need for further research into optimal ventilation strategies for COVID-19 patients in the ICU setting. Regional differences in outcome implies a need to develop region specific protocols for ventilatory support as well as overall treatment.

Research ethics in the intensive care unit: current and future challenges

Outcomes of intensive care are important to the patient and for assessment of benefit. Short-term outcomes after critical illness are well described, but less is known about long-term outcomes. This study describes the use of data linkage, combining intensive care unit (ICU) clinical data with administrative morbidity and mortality data, to assess long-term outcomes after treatment in ICU. The hospital-based cohort study was conducted in a 22-bed general ICU in a metropolitan teaching hospital. All patient admissions admitted to ICU from 1 January 1987 to 31 December 2002 were included. The prospective ICU clinical database with patient demographics, ICU diagnoses, severity of illness, daily assessment of organ failures and common daily treatments used was linked using probabilistic methods to the state-wide hospital morbidity and mortality databases to describe long-term survival. There were 26,019 ICU admissions (22,980 patients) with 25,972 records (99.8%) linked to a hospitalization event that included the index ICU admission. Unadjusted survival was 84.7% at 1 year decreasing progressively to 50.7% at 15 years. Age, type of admission, severity of illness (measured by Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and the presence of organ failure), ICU length of stay, comorbidity (Chronic Health Evaluation and Charlson comorbidity index) and ICU admission diagnosis, were all associated with survival at 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 year follow-up (P<0.001 at all time points). Linkage of clinical and administrative data provides a feasible method for ascertaining long-term survival after critical illness. Age, admission severity of illness, diagnosis and comorbidity influenced long-term unadjusted survival.