Objectives: To determine national readmission rates among sepsis survivors, variations in rates between hospitals, and determine whether measures of quality correlate with performance on sepsis readmissions. Design: Cross-sectional study of sepsis readmissions between 2008 and 2011 in the Medicare fee-for-service database. Setting: Acute care, Medicare participating hospitals from 2008 to 2011. Patients: Septic patients as identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes using the Angus method. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: We generated hospital-level, risk-standardized, 30-day readmission rates among survivors of sepsis and compared rates across region, ownership, teaching status, sepsis volume, hospital size, and proportion of underserved patients. We examined the relationship between risk-standardized readmission rates and hospital-level composite measures of quality and mortality. From 633,407 hospitalizations among 3,315 hospitals from 2008 to 2011, median risk-standardized readmission rates was 28.7% (interquartile range, 26.1–31.9). There were differences in risk-standardized readmission rates by region (Northeast, 30.4%; South, 29.6%; Midwest, 28.8%; and West, 27.7%; p < 0.001), teaching versus nonteaching status (31.1% vs 29.0%; p < 0.001), and hospitals serving the highest proportion of underserved patients (30.6% vs 28.7%; p < 0.001). The best performing hospitals on a composite quality measure had highest risk-standardized readmission rates compared with the lowest (32.0% vs 27.5%; p < 0.001). Risk-standardized readmission rates was lower in the highest mortality hospitals compared with those in the lowest (28.7% vs 30.7%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: One third of sepsis survivors were readmitted and wide variation exists between hospitals. Several demographic and structural factors are associated with this variation. Measures of higher quality in-hospital care were correlated with higher readmission rates. Several potential explanations are possible including poor risk standardization, more research is needed.
Critical Care Medicine: July 2017 - Volume 45 - Issue 7 - p e727–e733
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic nonhypercapnic respiratory failure unrelated to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and bibliographies of articles were retrieved inception until June 2016. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials comparing application of noninvasive ventilation with standard oxygen therapy in adults with acute hypoxemic nonhypercapnic respiratory failure were included. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation and cardiogenic pulmonary edema patients were excluded. The primary outcome was intubation rate; ICU mortality and hospital mortality were secondary outcomes. Data Extraction: Demographic variables, noninvasive ventilation application, and outcomes were retrieved. Internal validity was assessed using the risk of bias tool. The strength of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Data Synthesis: Eleven studies (1,480 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed by using a random effects model. Compared with standard oxygen therapy, the pooled effect showed that noninvasive ventilation significantly reduced intubation rate with a summary risk ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44–0.79; p = 0.0004). Furthermore, hospital mortality was also significantly reduced (risk ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24–0.87; p = 0.02). Subgroup meta-analysis showed that the application of bilevel positive support ventilation (bilevel positive airway pressure) was associated with a reduction in ICU mortality (p = 0.007). Helmet noninvasive ventilation could reduce hospital mortality (p = 0.0004), whereas face/nasal mask noninvasive ventilation could not. Conclusions: Noninvasive ventilation decreased endotracheal intubation rates and hospital mortality in acute hypoxemia nonhypercapnic respiratory failure excluding chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation and cardiogenic pulmonary edema patients. There is no sufficient scientific evidence to recommend bilevel positive airway pressure or helmet due to the limited number of trials available. Large rigorous randomized trials are needed to answer these questions definitely.
The cardio-respiratory effects of intra-abdominal hypertension: Considerations for critical care nursing practice Christensen M, Craft J Intensive and Critical Care Nursing : Article in Press Intra-abdominal hypertension can be classified as either primary or secondary. Primary intra-abdominal hypertension is often associated through trauma or diseases of the abdominopelvic region such as pancreatitis or abdominal surgery, while secondary intra-abdominal hypertension is the result of extra-abdominal causes such as sepsis or burns. The critically ill patient offers some challenges in monitoring in particular secondaryintra-abdominal hypertension because of the effects of fluid resuscitation, the use of inotropes and positive pressure ventilation. Recent work suggests that intensive care unit nurses are often unaware of the secondary effects of intra-abdominal pressure and therefore this is not monitored effectively. Therefore being aware of the cardio-respiratory effects may alert theintensive care nurse nurse to the development of intra-abdominal hypertension. The aim of this paper is to discuss the pathophysiology associated with the cardio-respiratory effects seen with intra-abdominal hypertension in the critically ill. In particular it will discuss how intra-abdominal hypertension can inadvertently be overlooked because of the low flow states that it produces which could be misconstrued as something else. It will also discuss how intra-abdominal hypertension impedes ventilation and respiratory mechanics which can often result in a non-cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. To close, the paper will offer some implications for critical care nursing practice.
Association Between Hospital Case Volume of Sepsis, Adherence to Evidence-Based Processes of Care and Patient Outcomes Fawzy, A, Walkey, AJ Critical Care Medicine: June 2017 - Volume 45 - Issue 6 - p 980–988 Objectives: We sought to explore potential mechanisms underlying hospital sepsis case volume-mortality associations by investigating implementation of evidence-based processes of care. Design: Retrospective cohort study. We determined associations of sepsis case volume with three evidence-based processes of care (lactate measurement during first hospital day, norepinephrine as first vasopressor, and avoidance of starch-based colloids) and assessed their role in mediation of case volume-mortality associations. Setting: Enhanced administrative data (Premier, Charlotte, NC) from 534 U.S. hospitals. Subjects: A total of 287,914 adult patients with sepsis present at admission between July 2010 and December 2012 of whom 58,045 received a vasopressor for septic shock during the first 2 days of hospitalization. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Among patients with sepsis, 1.9% received starch, and among patients with septic shock, 68.3% had lactate measured and 64% received norepinephrine as initial vasopressor. Patients at hospitals with the highest case volume were more likely to have lactate measured (adjusted odds ratio quartile 4 vs quartile 1, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.1–3.7) and receive norepinephrine as initial vasopressor (adjusted odds ratio quartile 4 vs quartile 1, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.6–2.7). Case volume was not associated with avoidance of starch products (adjusted odds ratio quartile 4 vs quartile 1, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.45–1.2). Adherence to evidence-based care was associated with lower hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70–0.94) but did not strongly mediate case volume-mortality associations (point estimate change ≤ 2%). Conclusions: In a large cohort of U.S. patients with sepsis, select evidence-based processes of care were more likely implemented at high-volume hospitals but did not strongly mediate case volume-mortality associations. Considering processes and case volume when regionalizing sepsis care may maximize patient outcomes.
Quantifying the Mortality Impact of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in the ICU Fuchs, L et al Critical Care Medicine: June 2017 - Volume 45 - Issue 6 - p 1019–1027 Objectives: We quantified the 28-day mortality effect of preexisting do-not-resuscitate orders in ICUs. Design: Longitudinal, retrospective study of patients admitted to five ICUs at a tertiary university medical center (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, BIDMC, Boston, MA) between 2001 and 2008. Intervention: None. Patients: Two cohorts were defined: patients with do not resuscitate advance directives on day 1 of ICU admission and a control group comprising patients with no limitations of level of care on ICU day 1 (full code). Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was mortality at 28 days after ICU admission. Of 19,007 ICU patients, 1,239 patients (6.5%) had a do-not-resuscitate order on the first day of ICU admission and survived 48 hours in the ICU. We matched those do-not-resuscitate patients with 2,402 patients with full-code status. Twenty-eight day and 1-year mortality were both significantly higher in the do-not-resuscitate group (33.9% vs 18.4% and 60.7% vs 40.2%; p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Do-not-resuscitate status is an independent risk factor for ICU mortality. This may reflect severity of illness not captured by other clinical factors, but the perceptions of the treating team related to do-not-resuscitate status could also be causally responsible for increased mortality in patients with do-not-resuscitate status.
Nursing staff’s experiences of working in an evidence-based designed ICU patient room—An interview study Sundberg F et al Intensive and Critical Care Nursing : Article in Press It has been known for centuries that environment in healthcare has an impact, but despite this, environment has been overshadowed by technological and medical progress, especially in intensive care. Evidence-based design is a concept concerning integrating knowledge from various research disciplines and its application to healing environments. Objective The aim was to explore the experiences of nursing staff of working in an evidence-based designed ICU patient room. Method Interviews were carried out with eight critical care nurses and five assistant nurses and then subjected to qualitative content analysis. Findings The experience of working in an evidence-based designed intensive care unit patient room was that the room stimulates alertness and promotes wellbeing in the nursing staff, fostering their caring activities but also that the interior design of the medical and technical equipment challenges nursing actions. Conclusions The room explored in this study had been rebuilt in order to create and evaluate a healing environment. This study showed that the new environment had a great impact on the caring staffs’ wellbeing and their caring behaviour. At a time when turnover in nurses is high and sick leave is increasing, these findings show the importance of interior design of intensive care units.
Delirium screening in intensive care: A life saving opportunity Lamond E, Murray S, Gibson CE Intensive and Critical Care Nursing : Article in Press Delirium is described as ‘acute brain failure’ and constitutes a medical emergency which presents a hazard for people cared for in intensive care units. The Scottish intensive care society audit group recommend that all people cared for in intensive care units be screened for signs of delirium so that treatment and management of complications can be implemented at an early stage.
Postoperative Complications and Outcomes Associated With a Transition to 24/7 Intensivist Management of Cardiac Surgery Patients Benoit, M et al Critical Care Medicine: June 2017 - Volume 45 - Issue 6 - p 993–1000 Objectives: Nighttime intensivist staffing does not improve patient outcomes in general ICUs. Few studies have examined the association between dedicated in-house 24/7 intensivist coverage on outcomes in specialized cardiac surgical ICUs. We sought to evaluate the association between 24/7 in-house intensivist-only management of cardiac surgical patients on postoperative complications and health resource utilization. Design: Before-and-after propensity matched cohort study. Setting: Tertiary care cardiac surgical ICU. Patients: Patients greater than 18 years old who underwent cardiac surgery between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2013 (nighttime resident model), were propensity-matched (1:1) to patients from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014 (24/7 in-house intensivist model). Interventions: Cardiac surgical ICU coverage change from a nighttime resident physician coverage model to a 24/7 in-house intensivist staffing model. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome of interest was a composite of postoperative major complications. Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, all-cause cardiac surgical ICU readmissions, and surgical postponements attributed to lack of cardiac surgical ICU bed availability. A total of 1,509 patients during the nighttime resident model were matched to 1,509 patients during the intensivist model. The adjusted risk of major complications (26.3% vs 19.3%; odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.36–0.85; p < 0.01), mean mechanical ventilation time (25.2 vs 19.4 hr; p < 0.01), cardiac surgical ICU readmissions (5.3% vs 1.6%; odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19–0.48; p < 0.01), and surgical postponements (3.4 vs 0.3 per mo; p < 0.01) were lower with the intensivist model. Conclusions: A transition to a 24/7 in-house intensivist care model was associated with a reduction in postoperative major complications, duration of mechanical ventilation, cardiac surgical ICU readmissions, and surgical postponements. These findings suggest that 24/7 intensivist physician care models may improve patient outcomes and health resource utilization in specialized cardiac surgical ICUs.
Critical Care Medicine: June 2017 - Volume 45 - Issue 6 - p 1061–1093 Objectives: The American College of Critical Care Medicine provided 2002 and 2007 guidelines for hemodynamic support of newborn and pediatric septic shock. Provide the 2014 update of the 2007 American College of Critical Care Medicine “Clinical Guidelines for Hemodynamic Support of Neonates and Children with Septic Shock.” Design: Society of Critical Care Medicine members were identified from general solicitation at Society of Critical Care Medicine Educational and Scientific Symposia (2006–2014). The PubMed/Medline/Embase literature (2006–14) was searched by the Society of Critical Care Medicine librarian using the keywords: sepsis, septicemia, septic shock, endotoxemia, persistent pulmonary hypertension, nitric oxide, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines in the newborn and pediatric age groups. Measurements and Main Results: The 2002 and 2007 guidelines were widely disseminated, translated into Spanish and Portuguese, and incorporated into Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Heart Association/Pediatric Advanced Life Support sanctioned recommendations. The review of new literature highlights two tertiary pediatric centers that implemented quality improvement initiatives to improve early septic shock recognition and first-hour compliance to these guidelines. Improved compliance reduced hospital mortality from 4% to 2%. Analysis of Global Sepsis Initiative data in resource rich developed and developing nations further showed improved hospital mortality with compliance to first-hour and stabilization guideline recommendations. Conclusions: The major new recommendation in the 2014 update is consideration of institution—specific use of 1) a “recognition bundle” containing a trigger tool for rapid identification of patients with septic shock, 2) a “resuscitation and stabilization bundle” to help adherence to best practice principles, and 3) a “performance bundle” to identify and overcome perceived barriers to the pursuit of best practice principles.