Priorities for future intensive care research in the UK: results of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

This James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership aimed to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about adult intensive care that are important to people who have been critically ill, their families, and the health professionals who care for them. Consensus techniques (modified Delphi and Nominal Group) were used to generate suggestions using online and postal surveys. Following verification and iterative editorial review, research topics were constructed from these suggestions. These topics were presented in a second online and postal survey for rating. A Nominal Group of 21 clinicians, patients and family representatives subsequently met to rank the most important research topics and produce a prioritised list. The project was coordinated by a representative Steering Group and independently overseen by the JLA. The initial survey and review of the literature generated over 1,300 suggestions. Preliminary editing and verification permitted us to encapsulate these suggestions within 151 research topics. Iterative review by members of the Steering Group produced 37 topic statements, subsequently rated by participants. Using the mode to determine importance, 19 topics were presented to the group from which a ‘top three’ intensive care research priorities were identified and a further nine topics were prioritised. By applying and adapting the JLA methodology to focus on an area of care rather than to a single disease, we have provided a means to ensure that patients, their families and professionals materially contribute to the prioritisation of intensive care research in the UK.

Responsiveness of the frontal EMG for monitoring the sedation state of critically ill patients.

Background. Excessive sedation is associated with adverse patient outcomes during critical illness, and a validated monitoring technology could improve care. We developed a novel method, the responsiveness index (RI) of the frontal EMG. We compared RI data with Ramsay clinical sedation assessments in general and cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods. We developed the algorithm by iterative analysis of detailed observational data in 30 medical–surgical ICU patients and described its performance in this cohort and 15 patients recovering from scheduled cardiac surgery. Continuous EMG data were collected via frontal electrodes and RI data compared with modified Ramsay sedation state assessments recorded regularly by a blinded trained observer. RI performance was compared with EntropyTM across Ramsay categories to assess validity. Results. RI correlated well with the Ramsay category, especially for the cardiac surgery cohort (general ICU patients r¼0.55; cardiac surgery patients r¼0.85, both P,0.0001). Discrimination across all Ramsay categories was reasonable in the general ICU patient cohort [PK¼0.74 (SEM 0.02)] and excellent in the cardiac surgery cohort [PK¼0.92 (0.02)]. Discrimination between ‘lighter’ vs ‘deeper’ (Ramsay 1–3 vs 4–6) was good for general ICU patients [PK¼0.80 (0.02)] and excellent for cardiac surgery patients [PK¼0.96 (0.02)]. Performance was significantly better than EntropyTM. Examination of individual cases suggested good face validity. Conclusions. RI of the frontal EMG has promise as a continuous sedation state monitor in critically ill patients. Further investigation to determine its utility in ICU decision-making is warranted.