Christian Waydhas

Evidence and consensus-based German guidelines for the management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in intensive care--short version.

Targeted monitoring of analgesia, sedation and delirium, as well as their appropriate management in critically ill patients is a standard of care in intensive care medicine. With the undisputed advantages of goal-oriented therapy established, there was a need to develop our own guidelines on analgesia and sedation in intensive care in Germany and these were published as 2nd Generation Guidelines in 2005. Through the dissemination of these guidelines in 2006, use of monitoring was shown to have improved from 8 to 51% and the use of protocol-based approaches increased to 46% (from 21%). Between 2006–2009, the existing guidelines from the DGAI (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin) and DIVI (Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin) were developed into 3rd Generation Guidelines for the securing and optimization of quality of analgesia, sedation and delirium management in the intensive care unit (ICU). In collaboration with another 10 professional societies, the literature has been reviewed using the criteria of the Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine. Using data from 671 reference works, text, diagrams and recommendations were drawn up. In the recommendations, Grade “A” (very strong recommendation), Grade “B” (strong recommendation) and Grade “0” (open recommendation) were agreed. As a result of this process we now have an interdisciplinary and consensus-based set of 3rd Generation Guidelines that take into account all critically illness patient populations. The use of protocols for analgesia, sedation and treatment of delirium are repeatedly demonstrated. These guidelines offer treatment recommendations for the ICU team. The implementation of scores and protocols into routine ICU practice is necessary for their success.

Evidence and consensus based guideline for the management of delirium, analgesia, and sedation in intensive care medicine. Revision 2015 (DAS-Guideline 2015) - short version.

In 2010, under the guidance of the DGAI (German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine) and DIVI (German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine), twelve German medical societies published the “Evidence- and Consensus-based Guidelines on the Management of Analgesia, Sedation and Delirium in Intensive Care”. Since then, several new studies and publications have considerably increased the body of evidence, including the new recommendations from the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) in conjunction with Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) from 2013. For this update, a major restructuring and extension of the guidelines were needed in order to cover new aspects of treatment, such as sleep and anxiety management. The literature was systematically searched and evaluated using the criteria of the Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine. The body of evidence used to formulate these recommendations was reviewed and approved by representatives of 17 national societies. Three grades of recommendation were used as follows: Grade “A” (strong recommendation), Grade “B” (recommendation) and Grade “0” (open recommendation). The result is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary, evidence and consensus-based set of level 3 guidelines. This publication was designed for all ICU professionals, and takes into account all critically ill patient populations. It represents a guide to symptom-oriented prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of delirium, anxiety, stress, and protocol-based analgesia, sedation, and sleep-management in intensive care medicine.

Quality indicators in intensive care medicine: why? Use or burden for the intensivist.

In order to improve quality (of therapy), one has to know, evaluate and make transparent, one’s own daily processes. This process of reflection can be supported by the presentation of key data or indicators, in which the real as-is state can be represented. Quality indicators are required in order to depict the as-is state. Quality indicators reflect adherence to specific quality measures. Continuing registration of an indicator is useless once it becomes irrelevant or adherence is 100%. In the field of intensive care medicine, studies of quality indicators have been performed in some countries. Quality indicators relevant for medical quality and outcome in critically ill patients have been identified by following standardized approaches. Different German societies of intensive care medicine have finally agreed on 10 core quality indicators that will be valid for two years and are currently recommended in German intensive care units (ICUs).

The German quality indicators in intensive care medicine 2013--second edition.

Quality indicators are key elements of quality management. The quality indicators for intensive care medicine of the German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) from the year 2010 were recently evaluated when their validity time expired after two years. Overall one indicator was replaced and further three were in part changed. The former indicator I “elevation of head of bed” was replaced by the indicator “Daily multi-professional ward rounds with the documentation of daily therapy goals” and added to the indicator IV “Weaning and other measures to prevent ventilator associated pneumonias (short: Weaning/VAP Bundle)” (VAP = ventilator-associated pneumonia) which aims at the reduction of VAP incidence. The indicator VIII “Documentation of structured relative-/next-of-kin communication” was refined. The indicator X “Direction of the ICU by a specially trained certified intensivist with no other clinical duties in a department” was also updated according to recent study results. These updated quality indicators are part of the Peer Review in intensive care medicine. The next update of the quality indicators is due in 2016.

Peer reviewing critical care: a pragmatic approach to quality management.

Critical care medicine frequently involves decisions and measures that may result in significant consequences for patients. In particular, mistakes may directly or indirectly derive from daily routine processes. In addition, consequences may result from the broader pharmaceutical and technological treatment options, which frequently involve multidimensional aspects. The increasing complexity of pharmaceutical and technological properties must be monitored and taken into account. Besides the presence of various disciplines involved, the provision of 24-hour care requires multiple handovers of significant information each day. Immediate expert action that is well coordinated is just as important as a professional handling of medicines limitations. Intensivists are increasingly facing professional quality management within the ICU (Intensive Care Unit). This article depicts a practical and effective approach to this complex topic and describes external evaluation of critical care according to peer reviewing processes, which have been successfully implemented in Germany and are likely to gain in significance.

Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit--a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units.

Introduction: Quality improvement and safety in intensive care are rapidly evolving topics. However, there is no gold standard for assessing quality improvement in intensive care medicine yet. In 2007 a pilot project in German intensive care units (ICUs) started using voluntary peer reviews as an innovative tool for quality assessment and improvement. We describe the method of voluntary peer review and assessed its feasibility by evaluating anonymized peer review reports and analysed the thematic clusters highlighted in these reports. Methods: Retrospective data analysis from 22 anonymous reports of peer reviews. All ICUs – representing over 300 patient beds – had undergone voluntary peer review. Data were retrieved from reports of peers of the review teams and representatives of visited ICUs. Data were analysed with regard to number of topics addressed and results of assessment questionnaires. Reports of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT reports) of these ICUs are presented. Results: External assessment of structure, process and outcome indicators revealed high percentages of adherence to predefined quality goals. In the SWOT reports 11 main thematic clusters were identified representative for common ICUs. 58.1% of mentioned topics covered personnel issues, team and communication issues as well as organisation and treatment standards. The most mentioned weaknesses were observed in the issues documentation/reporting, hygiene and ethics. We identified several unique patterns regarding quality in the ICU of which long-term personnel problems und lack of good reporting methods were most interesting Conclusion: Voluntary peer review could be established as a feasible and valuable tool for quality improvement. Peer reports addressed common areas of interest in intensive care medicine in more detail compared to other methods like measurement of quality indicators.

Cervical Spinal Cord Injury Shows Markedly Lower than Predicted Mortality (>72 Hours After Multiple Trauma) From Sepsis and Multiple Organ Failure

Background: Sepsis and multiple organ failure (MOF) remain one of the main causes of death after multiple trauma. Trauma- and infection-associated immune reactions play an important role in the pathomechanism of MOF, but the exact pathways remain unknown. Spinal cord injury (SCI) may lead to an altered immune response, and some studies suggest a prognostic advantage for such patients having sepsis or multiple trauma. Yet these findings need to be evaluated in larger cohorts of trauma patients. Methods: Retrospective, multicenter study, using the data of the TraumaRegister DGU. Patients with and without SCI surviving the initial first 72 hours after trauma were matched according to injury pattern and age. Comparative analysis considered morbidity (sepsis, MOF) and hospital mortality. Results: The study population included 800 matched pairs. As intended by the matching process, patients with cervical SCI had an otherwise comparable injury pattern but a higher severity of trauma (mean Injury Severity Score: 36 vs 29, mean number of diagnosis: 5.6 vs 4.4). They had a higher rate of sepsis (15.9% vs 10.9%, P = .005) and MOF (35.9% vs 24.1%, P < .001) while mortality revealed no significant difference (9.5% vs 9.9%, P = .866). Conclusions: Cervical SCI leads to an increased rate of sepsis and MOF but appears to be favorable with respect to outcome of sepsis and MOF following multiple trauma. Further research should focus on the pathomechanisms and the possible arising therapeutic options.

Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy in Ankylosing Spondylitis (Bechterew Disease) Is Feasible and Not Associated With Higher Complication Rates.

Background: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a common disease with an incidence of approximately 0.5% in Europe, causing severe limitations of axial spine mobility and cervical kyphosis. Deformities of the cervical spine and the temporomandibular joints could increase the risk of complications while performing an intubation or tracheostomy. The percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) is a standard procedure in intensive care medicine. However, the combination of cervical kyphosis and osteoporosis makes patient positioning challenging. Therefore, one could conclude that patients with AS are not candidates for PDT, but neither studies nor case reports yet reported about feasibility of this procedure in AS. Methods: Retrospective analysis at a level 1 trauma center of patient records from 2002 to 2016, assessing all patients with AS and PDT. Results: A total of 31 patients with AS have been subjected to PDT. All PDTs were performed using the modified Ciaglia single-step dilatational technique. Neither cardiopulmonary nor surgical complications occurred during the procedure. One patient received a change of the existing airway prior to the procedure; a small nasal tube was changed for a laryngeal mask. Conclusion: Although head positioning may be challenging, PDT should be taken into consideration for patients with AS. In the hands of an experienced doctor, it is safe and feasible.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in spina bifida and (H1N1)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterized as an acute hypoxemic and/or hypercapnic respiratory failure seen in critically ill patients and is still, although decreased over the past few years, associated with high mortality. Furthermore, ARDS may be a life-threatening complication of H1N1 pneumonia. We report on a 45-year-old spina bifida patient with confirmed H1N1 influenza virus infection causing acute respiratory failure, who was successfully weaned from 42-day veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) treatment with an excellent outcome. Due to the physical constitution of spina bifida patients, we experienced challenges concerning cannula positioning and mechanical ventilation settings during weaning.

Ökonomie, Qualitätsmanagement und Patientendatenbankmanagementsysteme (PDMS)

Externe Qualitatssicherung, wie sie in Deutschland mit dem Kerndatensatz Intensivmedizin moglich ist, erlaubt ein Benchmarking der eigenen Station mit der Gesamtheit der Teilnehmer (Martin et al. 2004). Die Umsetzung eines gefundenen Verbesserungspotenzials muss jedoch immer uber ein internes Qualitatsmanagement durchgefuhrt werden. Ziel eines Qualitatsmanagements ist es, die Struktur und die Prozesse so zu organisieren, dass ein optimales Ergebnis entsteht.