David Horowitz

Consensus summary statement of the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care: A statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

Neurocritical care depends, in part, on careful patient monitoring but as yet there are little data on what processes are the most important to monitor, how these should be monitored, and whether monitoring these processes is cost-effective and impacts outcome. At the same time, bioinformatics is a rapidly emerging field in critical care but as yet there is little agreement or standardization on what information is important and how it should be displayed and analyzed. The Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine, and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to begin to address these needs. International experts from neurosurgery, neurocritical care, neurology, critical care, neuroanesthesiology, nursing, pharmacy, and informatics were recruited on the basis of their research, publication record, and expertise. They undertook a systematic literature review to develop recommendations about specific topics on physiologic processes important to the care of patients with disorders that require neurocritical care. This review does not make recommendations about treatment, imaging, and intraoperative monitoring. A multidisciplinary jury, selected for their expertise in clinical investigation and development of practice guidelines, guided this process. The GRADE system was used to develop recommendations based on literature review, discussion, integrating the literature with the participants’ collective experience, and critical review by an impartial jury. Emphasis was placed on the principle that recommendations should be based on both data quality and on trade-offs and translation into clinical practice. Strong consideration was given to providing pragmatic guidance and recommendations for bedside neuromonitoring, even in the absence of high quality data.

Cholesterol measures to identify and treat individuals at risk for coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND Low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-based guidelines are currently used to initiate and monitor cholesterol-lowering therapy. METHODS Using stratified analyses, data from the Framingham Heart Study and the Coronary Primary Prevention Trial were evaluated to determine whether (1) cholesterol levels (total cholesterol [TC] or LDL [low-density lipoprotein]) better discriminated risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) than cholesterol ratios (LDL/HDL [high-density lipoprotein] or TC/HDL); and (2) whether changes in ratios better predicted risk reduction than changes in levels. RESULTS Individuals with similar LDL/HDL ratios had similar risks for CHD regardless of whether they had high LDL levels or low LDL levels (23% vs 23% for the CPPT, 13.8% vs 14% for FHS men, and 8.6% vs 10.9% for FHS women). Among men with similar initial LDL/HDL ratios and similar changes in LDL/HDL ratios, risks for CHD did not differ (20.3% compared with 21.0%; p =0.96) between those with the largest and smallest reductions in LDL levels (21.3% compared with 6.5%). Among men with similar initial LDL levels and similar LDL reductions, a 20% reduction in risk for CHD was seen (19.5% compared with 24.5%; p =0.005) between those with the largest and smallest reductions in LDL/HDL ratios (23% compared with 4.6%). TC/HDL had predictive ability similar to LDL/HDL. CONCLUSIONS Cholesterol levels do not provide incremental predictive value over cholesterol ratios in identifying people at risk for CHD. Changes in ratios are better predictors of successful CHD risk reduction than changes in levels. Future guidelines should consider incorporating ratios in initiating and monitoring successful lipid-lowering therapy.

Consensus Summary Statement of the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care: A statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

Neurocritical care depends, in part, on careful patient monitoring but as yet there are little data on what processes are the most important to monitor, how these should be monitored, and whether monitoring these processes is cost-effective and impacts outcome. At the same time, bioinformatics is a rapidly emerging field in critical care but as yet there is little agreement or standardization on what information is important and how it should be displayed and analyzed. The Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine, and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to begin to address these needs. International experts from neurosurgery, neurocritical care, neurology, critical care, neuroanesthesiology, nursing, pharmacy, and informatics were recruited on the basis of their research, publication record, and expertise. They undertook a systematic literature review to develop recommendations about specific topics on physiologic processes important to the care of patients with disorders that require neurocritical care. This review does not make recommendations about treatment, imaging, and intraoperative monitoring. A multidisciplinary jury, selected for their expertise in clinical investigation and development of practice guidelines, guided this process. The GRADE system was used to develop recommendations based on literature review, discussion, integrating the literature with the participants’ collective experience, and critical review by an impartial jury. Emphasis was placed on the principle that recommendations should be based on both data quality and on trade-offs and translation into clinical practice. Strong consideration was given to providing pragmatic guidance and recommendations for bedside neuromonitoring, even in the absence of high quality data.

A comparison of in-person home care, home care with telephone contact and home care with telemonitoring for disease management

We compared the effects of evidence-based disease management guidelines delivered to patients with heart failure and diabetes using three different modalities: in-person visits alone (Control), in-person visits and a telephone intervention (Telephone), and in-person visits and telemonitoring (Telemonitoring). Patients were randomized to the three groups. There were 112 patients in the Control group, 93 in the Telephone group and 98 in the Telemonitoring group. During the first 60 days, 10% of the Control group were rehospitalized, 17% of the Telephone group and 16% of the Telemonitoring group. Having heart failure and receiving more in-person visits were significantly related to readmission and time to readmission. However, after adjusting for diagnosis and visits, the differences between the three groups were non-significant. There was a trend for increased risk of readmission for the Telephone group compared to Control alone (P = 0.07, risk ratio 2.2, 95% CI: 0.9 to 5.2) and for readmission sooner (P = 0.02, risk ratio 2.3, 95% CI: 1.2 to 4.6). Patient rehospitalization and emergency department visit rates were lower than the national average, making it difficult to detect a difference between groups. Previous rehospitalization was a consistent predictor of those who were rehospitalized, suggesting that it may be a useful indicator for identifying patients likely to need additional attention.

The International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care: Evidentiary Tables: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

A variety of technologies have been developed to assist decision-making during the management of patients with acute brain injury who require intensive care. A large body of research has been generated describing these various technologies. The Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium (LABIC) organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to perform a systematic review of the published literature to help develop evidence-based practice recommendations on bedside physiologic monitoring. This supplement contains a Consensus Summary Statement with recommendations and individual topic reviews on physiologic processes important in the care of acute brain injury. In this article we provide the evidentiary tables for select topics including systemic hemodynamics, intracranial pressure, brain and systemic oxygenation, EEG, brain metabolism, biomarkers, processes of care and monitoring in emerging economies to provide the clinician ready access to evidence that supports recommendations about neuromonitoring.

The International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care: a list of recommendations and additional conclusions: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

Abstract Careful patient monitoring using a variety of techniques including clinical and laboratory evaluation, bedside physiological monitoring with continuous or non-continuous techniques and imaging is fundamental to the care of patients who require neurocritical care. How best to perform and use bedside monitoring is still being elucidated. To create a basic platform for care and a foundation for further research the Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to develop recommendations about physiologic bedside monitoring. This supplement contains a Consensus Summary Statement with recommendations and individual topic reviews as a background to the recommendations. In this article, we highlight the recommendations and provide additional conclusions as an aid to the reader and to facilitate bedside care.

Information Deficits in Home Care: A Barrier to Evidence-Based Disease Management

A disease management study conducted in home care with 303 patients with diabetes, heart failure, or both revealed information deficits that make disease and quality management difficult. Nurses used a guideline checklist to indicate the amount and type of information available to them on admission and by the end of the episode of care. Nurses reported having data on 7% to 94% of the data elements. Whether a lipid profile had been done, the HbA1C (glycosolated hemoglobin test, also called a hemoglobin A1C) levels, or ejection fractions were known for 7%, 17%, and 18%, respectively. When nurses reported information related to ACE-I use (N = 183), they reported that 76% of patients were on ACE-I (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) or acceptable alternative for heart failure. But no information was reported on ACE-I use for 12% of the patients (N = 24). Potential solutions to these deficits in information and quality include increased use of guidelines in home care, guideline checklists, information transfer forms, nurse activism to request information, and the adoption of the electronic health record.

International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring: ICU Processes of Care

There is an increased focus on evaluating processes of care, particularly in the high acuity and cost environment of intensive care. Evaluation of neurocritical-specific care and evidence-based protocol implementation are needed to effectively determine optimal processes of care and effect on patient outcomes. General quality measures to evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) processes of care have been proposed; however, applicability of these measures in neurocritical care populations has not been established. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for English language articles from 1990 to August 2013. A total of 1,061 articles were reviewed, with 145 meeting criteria for inclusion in this review. Care in specialized neurocritical care units or by neurocritical teams can have a positive impact on mortality, length of stay, and in some cases, functional outcome. Similarly, implementation of evidence-based protocol-directed care can enhance outcome in the neurocritical care population. There is significant evidence to support suggested quality indicators for the general ICU population, but limited research regarding specific use in neurocritical care. Quality indices for neurocritical care have been proposed; however, additional research is needed to further validate measures.

The International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care: A List of Recommendations and Additional Conclusions

Abstract Careful patient monitoring using a variety of techniques including clinical and laboratory evaluation, bedside physiological monitoring with continuous or non-continuous techniques and imaging is fundamental to the care of patients who require neurocritical care. How best to perform and use bedside monitoring is still being elucidated. To create a basic platform for care and a foundation for further research the Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to develop recommendations about physiologic bedside monitoring. This supplement contains a Consensus Summary Statement with recommendations and individual topic reviews as a background to the recommendations. In this article, we highlight the recommendations and provide additional conclusions as an aid to the reader and to facilitate bedside care.

Supporting Transitions in Care for Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Obesity

The aim of the current study was to compare outcomes for older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity following participation in a transitional care intervention that included diabetes self-management education (DSME) and homecare. The three groups analyzed comprised an inpatient DSME plus homecare group (n = 35); an inpatient DSME only group (n = 100); and a group who received usual care (n = 45). Outcomes of interest included rehospitalization rates and hemoglobin A1C (A1C) for up to 1-year post hospital discharge. Rates of rehospitalization and A1C improved for older adults who received nurse-led inpatient DSME and homecare during transitions of care from hospital to home. Rehospitalization rates up to 90 days were decreased for the DSME plus homecare group (10%) compared to DSME only (20%) and usual care groups (26.7%) (p < 0.05). A decrease of -0.4 and -2.3 A1C units was observed for the DSME group and DSME plus homecare group, respectively, at 90 days. These results support a transitional care educational intervention for older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity. TARGETS Older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity. INTERVENTION DESCRIPTION Transitional care intervention including diabetes self-management education and homecare. MECHANISMS OF ACTION Inpatient diabetes education and homecare helps improve rates of rehospitalization and hemoglobin A1C during care transitions from hospital to home. OUTCOMES Rehospitalization rates, glycemic control (i.e., A1C level). [Res Gerontol Nurs. 2018; 11(2):71-81.].