A realistic evaluation of track and trigger systems and acute care training for early recognition and treatment of deteriorating ward-based patients: research protocol.

Aim The aim of the study is to evaluate factors that enable or constrain the implementation and service delivery of early warnings systems or acute care training in practice. Background To date there is limited evidence to support the effectiveness of acute care initiatives (early warning systems, acute care training, outreach) in reducing the number of adverse events (cardiac arrest, death, unanticipated Intensive Care admission) through increased recognition and management of deteriorating ward based patients in hospital [1-3]. The reasons posited are that previous research primarily focused on measuring patient outcomes following the implementation of an intervention or programme without considering the social factors (the organisation, the people, external influences) which may have affected the process of implementation and hence measured end-points. Further research which considers the social processes is required in order to understand why a programme works, or does not work, in particular circumstances [4]. Method The design is a multiple case study approach of four general wards in two acute hospitals where Early Warning Systems (EWS) and Acute Life-threatening Events Recognition and Treatment (ALERT) course have been implemented. Various methods are being used to collect data about individual capacities, interpersonal relationships and institutional balance and infrastructures in order to understand the intended and unintended process outcomes of implementing EWS and ALERT in practice. This information will be gathered from individual and focus group interviews with key participants (ALERT facilitators, nursing and medical ALERT instructors, ward managers, doctors, ward nurses and health care assistants from each hospital); non-participant observation of ward organisation and structure; audit of patients' EWS charts and audit of the medical notes of patients who deteriorated during the study period to ascertain whether ALERT principles were followed. Discussion & progress to date This study commenced in January 2007. Ethical approval has been granted and data collection is ongoing with interviews being conducted with key stakeholders. The findings from this study will provide evidence for policy-makers to make informed decisions regarding the direction for strategic and service planning of acute care services to improve the level of care provided to acutely ill patients in hospital. References 1. Esmonde L, McDonnell A, Ball C, Waskett C, Morgan R, Rashidain A et al. Investigating the effectiveness of Critical Care Outreach Services: A systematic review. Intensive Care Medicine 2006; 32: 1713-1721 2. McGaughey J, Alderdice F, Fowler R, Kapila A, Mayhew A, Moutray M. Outreach and Early Warning Systems for the prevention of Intensive Care admission and death of critically ill patients on general hospital wards. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. www.thecochranelibrary.com 3. Winters BD, Pham JC, Hunt EA, Guallar E, Berenholtz S, Pronovost PJ (2007) Rapid Response Systems: A systematic review. Critical Care Medicine 2007; 35 (5): 1238-43 4. Pawson R and Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London; Sage: 1997

Fluid strategies and outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and sepsis: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background
Fluid administration to critically ill patients remains the subject of considerable controversy. While intravenous fluid given for resuscitation may be life-saving, a positive fluid balance over time is associated with worse outcomes in critical illness. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the existing evidence regarding the relationship between fluid administration or balance and clinically important patient outcomes in critical illness.

Methods
We will search Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1980 to the present and key conference proceedings from 2009 to the present. We will include studies of critically ill adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). We will include randomised controlled trials comparing two or more fluid regimens of different volumes of fluid and observational studies reporting the relationship between volume of fluid administered or fluid balance and outcomes including mortality, lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stay and organ dysfunction. Two independent reviewers will assess articles for eligibility, data extraction and quality appraisal. We will conduct a narrative and/or meta-analysis as appropriate.

Discussion
While fluid management has been extensively studied and discussed in the critical care literature, no systematic review has attempted to summarise the evidence for post-resuscitation fluid strategies in critical illness. Results of the proposed systematic review will inform practice and the design of future clinical trials.

Systematic review registration
PROSPERO CRD42013005608. (http://​www.​crd.​york.​ac.​uk/​PROSPERO/​)

Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

It is unknown whether a conservative approach to fluid administration or deresuscitation (active removal of fluid using diuretics or renal replacement therapy) is beneficial following haemodynamic stabilisation of critically ill patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategies in adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the post-resuscitation phase of critical illness.

Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from 1980 to June 2016, and manually reviewed relevant conference proceedings from 2009 to the present. Two reviewers independently assessed search results for inclusion and undertook data extraction and quality appraisal. We included randomised trials comparing fluid regimens with differing fluid balances between groups, and observational studies investigating the relationship between fluid balance and clinical outcomes.

Results

Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Marked clinical heterogeneity was evident. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials (2051 patients) using a random-effects model, we found no significant difference in mortality with conservative or deresuscitative strategies compared with a liberal strategy or usual care [pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.82–1.02, I2 = 0 %]. A conservative or deresuscitative strategy resulted in increased ventilator-free days (mean difference 1.82 days, 95 % CI 0.53–3.10, I2 = 9 %) and reduced length of ICU stay (mean difference −1.88 days, 95 % CI −0.12 to −3.64, I2 = 75 %) compared with a liberal strategy or standard care.

Conclusions

In adults and children with ARDS, sepsis or SIRS, a conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategy results in an increased number of ventilator-free days and a decreased length of ICU stay compared with a liberal strategy or standard care. The effect on mortality remains uncertain. Large randomised trials are needed to determine optimal fluid strategies in critical illness.

Research priorities of adult intensive care nurses in 20 European countries: a Delphi study.

Aims: This paper is a report of a three round Delphi study of intensive care nursing research priorities in Europe (October 2006–April 2009).

Background: Internationally, priorities for research in intensive care nursing have received some attention focusing on healthcare interventions and patient needs. Studies as early as the 1980s identified priorities in the United States, United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Australia. Research priorities of intensive care nurses across the European Union are unknown.

Methods: The participants, invited in 2006, included 110 intensive care nurses, managers, educators and researchers from 20 European Critical Care Nursing Associations. Delphi round one was an emailed questionnaire inviting participants to list important areas for research. The list was content analysed and developed into an online questionnaire for rounds two and three. In round two, participants ranked the topics on a scale of 1–6 (not important to extremely important). Mean scores of round two were added to the questionnaire of round three and participants ranked the topics again.

Results: There were 52 research topics in 12 domains. There was a dominance of priorities in five main areas: patient safety; impact of evidence based practice on outcomes; impact of workforce on outcomes; well being of patients and relatives; and impact of end-of-life care on staff and practice.

Conclusions: The results reflect worldwide healthcare concerns and objectives and highlight topics that nurses view as fundamental to the care of critically ill patients. These topics provide a platform for future research efforts to improve clinical practice and care of patients in intensive care.

International perspectives on the influence of structure and process of weaning from mechanical ventilation.

Background 
Recently, clinical and research attention has been focused on refining weaning processes to improve outcomes for critically ill patients who require mechanical ventilation. One such process, use of a weaning protocol, has yielded conflicting results, arguably because of the influence of existing context and processes.

Objective 
To compare international data to assess differences in context and processes in intensive care units that could influence weaning.  

Methods 
Review of existing national data on provision of care for critically ill patients, including structure, staffing, skill mix, education, roles, and responsibilities for weaning in intensive care units of selected countries.

Results 
Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom showed similarities in critical care provision, structure, skill mix, and staffing ratios in intensive care units. Weaning in these countries is generally a collaborative process between nurses and physicians. Notable differences in intensive care units in the United States were the frequent use of an open structure and inclusion of respiratory therapists on the intensive care unit’s health care team. Nurses may be excluded from direct management of ventilator weaning in some institutions, as this role is primarily assumed by respiratory therapists guided by medical directives. Availability of critical care beds was highest in the United States and lowest in the United Kingdom.

Conclusion 
Context and processes of care that could influence ventilator weaning outcomes varied considerably across countries. Further quantification of these contextual influences should be considered when translating research findings into local clinical practice and when designing randomized, controlled trials.

Impaired endothelium-dependent vasodilatation is a novel predictor of mortality in intensive care

Objective: Endothelial function may be impaired in critical illness. We hypothesized that impaired endothelium-dependent vasodilatation is a predictor of mortality in critically ill patients.
Design: Prospective observational cohort study.
Setting: Seventeen-bed adult intensive care unit in a tertiary referral university teaching hospital. Patients: Patients were recruited within 24 hrs of admission to the intensive care unit.
Interventions: The SphygmoCor Mx system was used to derive the aortic augmentation index from radial artery pulse pressure waveforms. Endothelium-dependent vasodilatation was calculated as the change in augmentation index in response to an endothelium-dependent vasodilator (salbutamol).
Measurements and Main Results: Demographics, severity of illness scores, and physiological parameters were collected. Statistically significant predictors of mortality identified using single regressor analysis were entered into a multiple logistic regression model. Receiver operator characteristic curves were generated. Ninety-four patients completed the study. There were 80 survivors and 14 nonsurvivors. The Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, leukocyte count, and endothelium-dependent vasodilatation conferred an increased risk of mortality. In logistic regression analysis, endothelium-dependent vasodilatation was the only predictor of mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 26.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-159.5). An endothelium-dependent vasodilatation value of 0.5% or less predicted intensive care unit mortality with a sensitivity of 79% (CI, 59-88%) and specificity of 98% (CI, 94-99%).
Conclusions: In vivo bedside assessment of endothelium-dependent vasodilatation is an independent predictor of mortality in the critically ill. We have shown it to be superior to other validated severity of illness scores with high sensitivity and specificity.

High-volume haemofiltration for sepsis.

Background: Severe sepsis and septic shock are leading causes of death in the intensive care unit (ICU). This is despite advances in the management of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock including early recognition, source control, timely and appropriate administration of antimicrobial agents, and goal directed haemodynamic, ventilatory and metabolic therapies. High-volume haemofiltration (HVHF) is a blood purification technique which may improve outcomes in critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The technique of HVHF has evolved from renal replacement therapies used to treat acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients in the ICU.

Objectives: This review assessed whether HVHF improves clinical outcome in adult critically ill patients with sepsis in an ICU setting.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2011, Issue 7); MEDLINE (1990 to August 2011), EMBASE (1990 to August 2011); LILACS (1982 to August 2011), Web of Science (1990 to August 2011), CINAHL (1982 to August 2011) and specific websites.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials comparing HVHF or high-volume haemodiafiltration to standard or usual dialysis therapy; and RCTs and quasi-randomized trials comparing HVHF or high-volume haemodiafiltration to no similar dialysis therapy. The studies involved adults in critical care units.

Data collection and analysis: Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We sought additional information as required from trialists.

Main results: We included three randomized trials involving 64 participants. Due to the small number of studies and participants, it was not possible to combine data or perform sub-group analyses. One trial reported ICU and 28-day mortality, one trial reported hospital mortality and in the third, the number of deaths stated did not match the quoted mortality rates. No trials reported length of stay in ICU or hospital and one reported organ dysfunction. No adverse events were reported. Overall, the included studies had a low risk of bias.

Authors' conclusions: There were no adverse effects of HVHF reported.There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of HVHF in critically ill patients with severe sepsis and or septic shock except as interventions being investigated in the setting of a randomized clinical trial. These trials should be large, multi-centred and have clinically relevant outcome measures. Financial implications should also be assessed.

Diagnostic accuracy of pulmonary host inflammatory mediators in the exclusion of ventilator-acquired pneumonia

Background: Excessive use of empirical antibiotics is common in critically ill patients. Rapid biomarker-based exclusion of infection may improve antibiotic stewardship in ventilator-acquired pneumonia (VAP). However, successful validation of the usefulness of potential markers in this setting is exceptionally rare.

Objectives: We sought to validate the capacity for specific host inflammatory mediators to exclude pneumonia in patients with suspected VAP. 

Methods: A prospective, multicentre, validation study of patients with suspected VAP was conducted in 12 intensive care units. VAP was confirmed following bronchoscopy by culture of a potential pathogen in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) at >10⁴ colony forming units per millilitre (cfu/mL). Interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), IL-8, matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8), MMP-9 and human neutrophil elastase (HNE) were quantified in BALF. Diagnostic utility was determined for biomarkers individually and in combination. 

Results: Paired BALF culture and biomarker results were available for 150 patients. 53 patients (35%) had VAP and 97 (65%) patients formed the non-VAP group. All biomarkers were significantly higher in the VAP group (p<0.001). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for IL-1β was 0.81; IL-8, 0.74; MMP-8, 0.76; MMP-9, 0.79 and HNE, 0.78. A combination of IL-1β and IL-8, at the optimal cut-point, excluded VAP with a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 44.3% and a post-test probability of 0% (95% CI 0% to 9.2%). 

Conclusions: Low BALF IL-1β in combination with IL-8 confidently excludes VAP and could form a rapid biomarker-based rule-out test, with the potential to improve antibiotic stewardship.

An evaluation of a critical care course for undergraduate nursing students

AIM:
The aim of this paper was to evaluate a 2-day critical care course (CCC) delivered to a cohort of adult branch nursing students.

BACKGROUND:
In today's health care system there is an increase in the number of critically ill patients being cared for in a ward environment. As a result, nurses require the knowledge and skills to effectively manage this patient group. Skills such as prompt recognition of the sick patient, effective communication and performing basic management care skills are necessary.

METHODS:
The CCC was provided to final year adult branch nursing students (n = 182) within a university in the UK. On completion of the course, participants were invited to undertake a Likert scale questionnaire. The questionnaire also contained a free response section to elicit qualitative information. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS version 17.0 and descriptive statistics produced. Qualitative responses were analysed thematically.

RESULTS:
There was a 73.7% (n = 135) response rate. Overall, there was a positive evaluation of the course. Students (89.6%; n = 121) reported a perceived increase in confidence when caring for critically ill patients following the course and 88.2% (n = 119) felt that their knowledge and skills had improved at the end of the 2-day course.

CONCLUSION:
This study supports the implementation of critical care training for undergraduate nursing students. There are implications for the development of specific modules, aiming to improve undergraduate nursing students' recognition, assessment and management of the critically ill patient.

Core Outcomes in Ventilation Trials (COVenT): protocol for a core outcome set using a Delphi survey with a nested randomised trial and observational cohort study

Background
Among clinical trials of interventions that aim to modify time spent on mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients there is considerable inconsistency in chosen outcomes and how they are measured. The Core Outcomes in Ventilation Trials (COVenT) study aims to develop a set of core outcomes for use in future ventilation trials in mechanically ventilated adults and children.

Methods/design
We will use a mixed methods approach that incorporates a randomised trial nested within a Delphi study and a consensus meeting. Additionally, we will conduct an observational cohort study to evaluate uptake of the core outcome set in published studies at 5 and 10 years following core outcome set publication. The three-round online Delphi study will use a list of outcomes that have been reported previously in a review of ventilation trials. The Delphi panel will include a range of stakeholder groups including patient support groups. The panel will be randomised to one of three feedback methods to assess the impact of the feedback mechanism on subsequent ranking of outcomes. A final consensus meeting will be held with stakeholder representatives to review outcomes.

Discussion
The COVenT study aims to develop a core outcome set for ventilation trials in critical care, explore the best Delphi feedback mechanism for achieving consensus and determine if participation increases use of the core outcome set in the long term.

Alpha-2 agonists for sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care units: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Care of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often requires potentially invasive or uncomfortable procedures, such as mechanical ventilation (MV). Sedation can alleviate pain and discomfort, provide protection from stressful or harmful events, prevent anxiety and promote sleep. Various sedative agents are available for use in ICUs. In the UK, the most commonly used sedatives are propofol (Diprivan(®), AstraZeneca), benzodiazepines [e.g. midazolam (Hypnovel(®), Roche) and lorazepam (Ativan(®), Pfizer)] and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists [e.g. dexmedetomidine (Dexdor(®), Orion Corporation) and clonidine (Catapres(®), Boehringer Ingelheim)]. Sedative agents vary in onset/duration of effects and in their side effects. The pattern of sedation of alpha-2 agonists is quite different from that of other sedatives in that patients can be aroused readily and their cognitive performance on psychometric tests is usually preserved. Moreover, respiratory depression is less frequent after alpha-2 agonists than after other sedative agents.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effects of alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine and clonidine) and propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) in mechanically ventilated adults admitted to ICUs.

DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE without revisions, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1999 to 2014.

METHODS: Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine or dexmedetomidine or clonidine with propofol or benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam and diazepam (Diazemuls(®), Actavis UK Limited). Primary outcomes included mortality, duration of MV, length of ICU stay and adverse events. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. A second reviewer cross-checked all the data extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis.

RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs (2489 adult patients) were included. One trial at unclear risk of bias compared dexmedetomidine with clonidine and found that target sedation was achieved in a higher number of patients treated with dexmedetomidine with lesser need for additional sedation. The remaining 17 trials compared dexmedetomidine with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam). Trials varied considerably with regard to clinical population, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded outcome assessors. Compared with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam), dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.24, I (2) = 0%; p = 0.78]. Length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.26 days, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.55 days, I (2) = 31%; p = 0.0004) and time to extubation (mean difference -1.85 days, 95% CI -2.61 to -1.09 days, I (2) = 0%; p < 0.00001) were significantly shorter among patients who received dexmedetomidine. No difference in time to target sedation range was observed between sedative interventions (I (2) = 0%; p = 0.14). Dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.77, I (2) = 46%; p = 0.001).

LIMITATIONS: Trials varied considerably with regard to participants, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded assessors.

CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the use of clonidine in ICUs is very limited. Dexmedetomidine may be effective in reducing ICU length of stay and time to extubation in critically ill ICU patients. Risk of bradycardia but not of overall mortality is higher among patients treated with dexmedetomidine. Well-designed RCTs are needed to assess the use of clonidine in ICUs and identify subgroups of patients that are more likely to benefit from the use of dexmedetomidine.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014101.

FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates.