The Antibiotic Resistance and Prescribing in European Children Project: A Neonatal and Pediatric Antimicrobial Web-based Point Prevalence Survey in 73 Hospitals Worldwide

BACKGROUND: The neonatal and pediatric antimicrobial point prevalence survey (PPS) of the Antibiotic Resistance and Prescribing in European Children project (http://www.arpecproject.eu/) aims to standardize a method for surveillance of antimicrobial use in children and neonates admitted to the hospital within Europe. This article describes the audit criteria used and reports overall country-specific proportions of antimicrobial use. An analytical review presents methodologies on antimicrobial use.

METHODS: A 1-day PPS on antimicrobial use in hospitalized children was organized in September 2011, using a previously validated and standardized method. The survey included all inpatient pediatric and neonatal beds and identified all children receiving an antimicrobial treatment on the day of survey. Mandatory data were age, gender, (birth) weight, underlying diagnosis, antimicrobial agent, dose and indication for treatment. Data were entered through a web-based system for data-entry and reporting, based on the WebPPS program developed for the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption project.

RESULTS: There were 2760 and 1565 pediatric versus 1154 and 589 neonatal inpatients reported among 50 European (n = 14 countries) and 23 non-European hospitals (n = 9 countries), respectively. Overall, antibiotic pediatric and neonatal use was significantly higher in non-European (43.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.3-46.3% and 39.4%; 95% CI: 35.5-43.4%) compared with that in European hospitals (35.4; 95% CI: 33.6-37.2% and 21.8%; 95% CI: 19.4-24.2%). Proportions of antibiotic use were highest in hematology/oncology wards (61.3%; 95% CI: 56.2-66.4%) and pediatric intensive care units (55.8%; 95% CI: 50.3-61.3%).

CONCLUSIONS: An Antibiotic Resistance and Prescribing in European Children standardized web-based method for a 1-day PPS was successfully developed and conducted in 73 hospitals worldwide. It offers a simple, feasible and sustainable way of data collection that can be used globally.

The U.N. convention on the rights of the child: Relevance and application to pediatric clinical bioethics

This article provides an overview of the relevance and import of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to child health practice and pediatric bioethics. We discuss the four general principles of the CRC that apply to the implementation of all rights contained in the document, the right to health articulated in Article 24, and the important position ascribed to parents in fulfilling the rights of their children. We then examine how the CRC is implemented and monitored in law and practice. The CRC and associated principles of child rights provide strategies for rights-based approaches to clinical practice and health systems, as well as to policy design, professional training, and health services research. In light of the relevance of the CRC and principles of child rights to children’s health and child health practice, it follows that there is an intersection between child rights and pediatric bioethics. Pediatric bioethicists and child rights advocates should work together to define this intersection in all domains of pediatric practice.

DESCRIBING SLEEP AND SEDATION PRACTICES IN THE ICU: A MULTINATIONAL SURVEY

Introduction Sleep disturbances are common in critically ill patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) with the potential for serious consequences and long-term effects on health outcomes and patient morbidity.
Objectives Our aim was to describe sleep management and sedation practices of adult ICUs in ten countries and to evaluate roles and responsibilities of the ICU staff in relation to key sleep and sedation decisions.
Methods A multicenter, self-administered survey sent to nurse managers of adult ICUs across 10 countries. The questionnaire comprised four domains: sleep characteristics of the critically ill; sleep and sedation practices; non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions used to improve sleep; and the autonomy and influence of nurses on sleeping practices in the ICU.
Results Overall response rate was 66% (range 32% UK to 100% Cyprus), providing data from 522 ICUs. In all countries, the most frequent patient characteristic perceived to identify sleep was lying quietly with closed eyes (N=409, 78%) (range 92% Denmark to 36% Italy). The most commonly used sedation scale was the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Score (RASS) (N=220, 42%) (range 81% UK to 0% Denmark, Cyprus where most ICUs used the Ramsay score). In most ICUs, selection of sleep medication (N=265, 51%) and assessment of effect (N=309, 59%) was performed by physicians and nurses based on collaborative discussion. In a minority of ICUs (N=161, 31%), decisions and assessments were made by physicians alone. The most commonly used (in all countries) non-pharmacological intervention to promote sleep was reducing ICU staff noise (N=473, 91%) (range 100% Denmark, Norway to 78% Canada). Only 95 ICUs (18%) used earplugs on a frequent basis (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark to 57% Sweden). Propofol was the drug used most commonly for sedation (N=359, 69%) (range 96% Sweden to 29% Canada). Chloral hydrate was used by only 63 (12%) ICUs (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark, Italy to 56% Germany). Sedation scales were used on a routine basis by 77% of the 522 ICUs. Participants scored nursing autonomy for sleep and sedation management as moderate; median score of 5 (scale of 0 to 10), range 7 (Canada, Greece, Sweden) to 4 (Norway, Poland). Nursing influence on sleep and sedation decisions was perceived considerable; median score 8, range 9 (Denmark) to 5 (Poland).
Conclusions We found considerable across country variation in sleep promotion and sedation management practices though most have adopted a sedation scale as recommended in professional society guidelines. Most ICUs in all countries used a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to promote sleep. Most units reported inter-professional decision-making with nurses perceived to have substantial influence on sleep/sedation decisions.

Using protocols in ICU practice. Engaging the staff.

Aims/Purpose: Protocols are evidenced-based structured guides for directing care to achieve improvements. But translating that evidence into practice is a major challenge. It is not acceptable to simply introduce the protocol and expect it to be adopted and lead to change in practice. Implementation requires effective leadership and management. This presentation describes a strategy for implementation that should promote successful adoption and lead to practice change.
Presentation description: There are many social and behavioural change models to assist and guide practice change. Choosing a model to guide implementation is important for providing a framework for action. The change process requires careful thought, from the protocol itself to the policies and politics within the ICU. In this presentation, I discuss a useful pragmatic guide called the 6SQUID (6 Steps in QUality Intervention Development). This was initially designed for public health interventions, but the model has wider applicability and has similarities with other change process models. Steps requiring consideration include examining the purpose and the need for change; the staff that will be affected and the impact on their workload; and the evidence base supporting the protocol. Subsequent steps in the process that the ICU manager should consider are the change mechanism (widespread multi-disciplinary consultation; adapting the protocol to the local ICU); and identifying how to deliver the change mechanism (educational workshops and preparing staff for the changes are imperative). Recognising the barriers to implementation and change and addressing these locally is also important. Once the protocol has been implemented, there is generally a learning curve before it becomes embedded in practice. Audit and feedback on adherence are useful strategies to monitor and sustain the changes.
Conclusion: Managing change successfully will promote a positive experience for staff. In turn, this will encourage a culture of enthusiasm for translating evidence into practice.

Effect of intravenous haloperidol on the duration of delirium and coma in critically ill patients (Hope-ICU):A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Delirium is frequently diagnosed in critically ill patients and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Haloperidol is the most commonly used drug for delirium despite little evidence of its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to establish whether early treatment with haloperidol would decrease the time that survivors of critical illness spent in delirium or coma. Methods: We did this double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in a general adult intensive care unit (ICU). Critically ill patients (≥18 years) needing mechanical ventilation within 72 h of admission were enrolled. Patients were randomised (by an independent nurse, in 1:1 ratio, with permuted block size of four and six, using a centralised, secure web-based randomisation service) to receive haloperidol 2·5 mg or 0·9% saline placebo intravenously every 8 h, irrespective of coma or delirium status. Study drug was discontinued on ICU discharge, once delirium-free and coma-free for 2 consecutive days, or after a maximum of 14 days of treatment, whichever came first. Delirium was assessed using the confusion assessment method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). The primary outcome was delirium-free and coma-free days, defined as the number of days in the first 14 days after randomisation during which the patient was alive without delirium and not in coma from any cause. Patients who died within the 14 day study period were recorded as having 0 days free of delirium and coma. ICU clinical and research staff and patients were masked to treatment throughout the study. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, number ISRCTN83567338. Findings: 142 patients were randomised, 141 were included in the final analysis (71 haloperidol, 70 placebo). Patients in the haloperidol group spent about the same number of days alive, without delirium, and without coma as did patients in the placebo group (median 5 days [IQR 0-10] vs 6 days [0-11] days; p=0·53). The most common adverse events were oversedation (11 patients in the haloperidol group vs six in the placebo group) and QTc prolongation (seven patients in the haloperidol group vs six in the placebo group). No patient had a serious adverse event related to the study drug. Interpretation: These results do not support the hypothesis that haloperidol modifies duration of delirium in critically ill patients. Although haloperidol can be used safely in this population of patients, pending the results of trials in progress, the use of intravenous haloperidol should be reserved for short-term management of acute agitation. Funding: National Institute for Health Research. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.