Eduard E. Vasilevskis

Effectiveness and safety of the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle.

Objective:The debilitating and persistent effects of ICU-acquired delirium and weakness warrant testing of prevention strategies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of implementing the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle into everyday practice. Design:Eighteen-month, prospective, cohort, before-after study conducted between November 2010 and May 2012. Setting:Five adult ICUs, one step-down unit, and one oncology/hematology special care unit located in a 624-bed tertiary medical center. Patients:Two hundred ninety-six patients (146 prebundle and 150 postbundle implementation), who are 19 years old or older, managed by the institutions’ medical or surgical critical care service. Interventions:Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle. Measurements and Main Results:For mechanically ventilated patients (n = 187), we examined the association between bundle implementation and ventilator-free days. For all patients, we used regression models to quantify the relationship between Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle implementation and the prevalence/duration of delirium and coma, early mobilization, mortality, time to discharge, and change in residence. Safety outcomes and bundle adherence were monitored. Patients in the postimplementation period spent three more days breathing without mechanical assistance than did those in the preimplementation period (median [interquartile range], 24 [7–26] vs 21 [0–25]; p = 0.04). After adjusting for age, sex, severity of illness, comorbidity, and mechanical ventilation status, patients managed with the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle experienced a near halving of the odds of delirium (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33–0.93; p = 0.03) and increased odds of mobilizing out of bed at least once during an ICU stay (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.29–3.45; p = 0.003). No significant differences were noted in self-extubation or reintubation rates. Conclusions:Critically ill patients managed with the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle spent three more days breathing without assistance, experienced less delirium, and were more likely to be mobilized during their ICU stay than patients treated with usual care.

Reducing Hospital Readmission Rates: Current Strategies and Future Directions

New financial penalties for institutions with high readmission rates have intensified efforts to reduce rehospitalization. Several interventions that involve multiple components (e.g., patient needs assessment, medication reconciliation, patient education, arranging timely outpatient appointments, and providing telephone follow-up) have successfully reduced readmission rates for patients discharged to home. The effect of interventions on readmission rates is related to the number of components implemented; single-component interventions are unlikely to reduce readmissions significantly. For patients discharged to postacute care facilities, multicomponent interventions have reduced readmissions through enhanced communication, medication safety, advanced care planning, and enhanced training to manage medical conditions that commonly precipitate readmission. To help hospitals direct resources and services to patients with greater likelihood of readmission, risk-stratification methods are available. Future work should better define the roles of home-based services, information technology, mental health care, caregiver support, community partnerships, and new transitional care personnel.

Diagnosing delirium in older emergency department patients: validity and reliability of the delirium triage screen and the brief confusion assessment method.

STUDY OBJECTIVE Delirium is a common form of acute brain dysfunction with prognostic significance. Health care professionals caring for older emergency department (ED) patients miss delirium in approximately 75% of cases. This error results from a lack of available measures that can be performed rapidly enough to be incorporated into clinical practice. Therefore, we developed and evaluated a novel 2-step approach to delirium surveillance for the ED. METHODS This prospective observational study was conducted at an academic ED in patients aged 65 years or older. A research assistant and physician performed the Delirium Triage Screen (DTS), designed to be a highly sensitive rule-out test, and the Brief Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM), designed to be a highly specific rule-in test for delirium. The reference standard for delirium was a comprehensive psychiatrist assessment using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria. All assessments were independently conducted within 3 hours of one another. Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. RESULTS Of 406 enrolled patients, 50 (12.3%) had delirium diagnosed by the psychiatrist reference standard. The DTS was 98.0% sensitive (95% CI 89.5% to 99.5%), with an expected specificity of approximately 55% for both raters. The DTSs negative likelihood ratio was 0.04 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.25) for both raters. As the complement, the bCAM had a specificity of 95.8% (95% CI 93.2% to 97.4%) and 96.9% (95% CI 94.6% to 98.3%) and a sensitivity of 84.0% (95% CI 71.5% to 91.7%) and 78.0% (95% CI 64.8% to 87.2%) when performed by the physician and research assistant, respectively. The positive likelihood ratios for the bCAM were 19.9 (95% CI 12.0 to 33.2) and 25.2 (95% CI 13.9 to 46.0), respectively. If the research assistant DTS was followed by the physician bCAM, the sensitivity of this combination was 84.0% (95% CI 71.5% to 91.7%) and specificity was 95.8% (95% CI 93.2% to 97.4%). If the research assistant performed both the DTS and bCAM, this combination was 78.0% sensitive (95% CI 64.8% to 87.2%) and 97.2% specific (95% CI 94.9% to 98.5%). If the physician performed both the DTS and bCAM, this combination was 82.0% sensitive (95% CI 69.2% to 90.2%) and 95.8% specific (95% CI 93.2% to 97.4%). CONCLUSION In older ED patients, this 2-step approach (highly sensitive DTS followed by highly specific bCAM) may enable health care professionals, regardless of clinical background, to efficiently screen for delirium. Larger, multicenter trials are needed to confirm these findings and to determine the effect of these assessments on delirium recognition in the ED.

Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and functional disability in survivors of critical illness in the BRAIN-ICU study: a longitudinal cohort study

Background Critical illness is associated with cognitive impairment, but mental health and functional disabilities in general intensive care unit (ICU) survivors are inadequately characterized and there are a paucity of data regarding the relationship between age and delirium and these outcomes.BACKGROUND Critical illness is associated with cognitive impairment, but mental health and functional disabilities in survivors of intensive care are inadequately characterised. We aimed to assess associations of age and duration of delirium with mental health and functional disabilities in this group. METHODS In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we enrolled patients with respiratory failure or shock who were undergoing treatment in medical or surgical ICUs in Nashville, TN, USA. We obtained data for baseline demographics and in-hospital variables, and assessed survivors at 3 months and 12 months with measures of depression (Beck Depression Inventory II), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-Event Specific Version), and functional disability (activities of daily living scales, Pfeffer Functional Activities Questionnaire, and Katz Activities of Daily Living Scale). We used linear and proportional odds logistic regression to assess the independent associations between age and duration of delirium with mental health and functional disabilities. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00392795. FINDINGS We enrolled 821 patients with a median age of 61 years (IQR 51-71), assessing 448 patients at 3 months and 382 patients at 12 months after discharge. At 3 months, 149 (37%) of 406 patients with available data reported at least mild depression, as did 116 (33%) of 347 patients at 12 months; this depression was mainly due to somatic rather than cognitive-affective symptoms. Depressive symptoms were common even among individuals without a history of depression (as reported by a proxy), occurring in 76 (30%) of 255 patients with data at 3 months and 62 (29%) of 217 individuals at 12 months. Only 7% of patients (27 of 415 at 3 months and 24 of 361 at 12 months) had symptoms consistent with post-traumatic distress disorder. Disabilities in basic activities of daily living (ADL) were present in 139 (32%) of 428 patients at 3 months and 102 (27%) of 374 at 12 months, as were disabilities in instrumental ADL in 108 (26%) of 422 individuals at 3 months and 87 (23%) of 372 at 12 months. Mental health and functional difficulties were prevalent in patients of all ages. Although old age was frequently associated with mental health problems and functional disabilities, we observed no consistent association between the presence of delirium and these outcomes. INTERPRETATION Poor mental health and functional disability is common in patients treated in intensive-care units. Depression is five times more common than is post-traumatic distress disorder after critical illness and is driven by somatic symptoms, suggesting approaches targeting physical rather than cognitive causes could benefit patients leaving critical care. FUNDING National Institutes of Health AG027472 and the Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System.

Chronic conditions among children admitted to U.S. pediatric intensive care units: Their prevalence and impact on risk for mortality and prolonged length of stay*

Objective:To estimate the prevalence of chronic conditions among children admitted to U.S. pediatric intensive care units and to assess whether patients with complex chronic conditions experience pediatric intensive care unit mortality and prolonged length of stay risk beyond that predicted by commonly used severity-of-illness risk-adjustment models. Design, Setting, and Patients:Retrospective cohort analysis of 52,791 pediatric admissions to 54 U.S. pediatric intensive care units that participated in the Virtual Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Systems database in 2008. Measurements:Hierarchical logistic regression models, clustered by pediatric intensive care unit site, for pediatric intensive care unit mortality and length of stay >15 days. Standardized mortality ratios adjusted for severity-of-illness score alone and with complex chronic conditions. Main Results:Fifty-three percent of pediatric intensive care unit admissions had complex chronic conditions, and 18.5% had noncomplex chronic conditions. The prevalence of these conditions and their organ system subcategories varied considerably across sites. The majority of complex chronic condition subcategories were associated with significantly greater odds of pediatric intensive care unit mortality (odds ratios 1.25–2.9, all p values < .02) compared to having a noncomplex chronic condition or no chronic condition, after controlling for age, gender, trauma, and severity-of-illness. Only respiratory, gastrointestinal, and rheumatologic/orthopedic/psychiatric complex chronic conditions were not associated with increased odds of pediatric intensive care unit mortality. All subcategories were significantly associated with prolonged length of stay. All noncomplex chronic condition subcategories were either not associated or were negatively associated with pediatric intensive care unit mortality, and most were not associated with prolonged length of stay, compared to having no chronic conditions. Among this group of pediatric intensive care units, adding complex chronic conditions to risk-adjustment models led to greater model accuracy but did not substantially change unit-level standardized mortality ratios. Conclusions:Children with complex chronic conditions were at greater risk for pediatric intensive care unit mortality and prolonged length of stay than those with no chronic conditions, but the magnitude of risk varied across subcategories. Inclusion of complex chronic conditions into models of pediatric intensive care unit mortality improved model accuracy but had little impact on standardized mortality ratios.

Variation in ICU Risk-Adjusted Mortality: Impact of Methods of Assessment and Potential Confounders

BACKGROUND Federal and state agencies are considering ICU performance assessment and public reporting; however, an accurate method for measuring performance must be selected. In this study, we determine whether a substantial variation in ICU mortality performance still exists in modern ICUs, and compare the predictive accuracy, reliability, and data burden of existing ICU risk-adjustment models. METHODS A retrospective chart review of 11,300 ICU patients from 35 California hospitals from 2001 to 2004 was performed. We calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for each hospital using the mortality probability model III (MPM(0) III), the simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) II, and the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) IV risk-adjustment models. We compared discrimination, calibration, data reliability, and abstraction time for the models. RESULTS Regardless of the model used, there was a large variation in SMRs among the ICUs studied. The discrimination and calibration were adequate for all risk-adjustment models. APACHE IV had the best discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.892) compared to MPM(0) III (AUC, 0.809), and SAPS II (AUC, 0.873; p < 0.001). The models differed substantially in data abstraction times, as follows: MPM(0)III, 11.1 min (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.7 to 13.4); SAPS II, 19.6 min (95% CI, 17.0 to 22.2); and APACHE IV, 37.3 min (95% CI, 28.0 to 46.6). CONCLUSIONS We found substantial variation in the ICU risk-adjusted mortality rates that persisted regardless of the risk-adjustment model. With unlimited resources, the APACHE IV model offers the best predictive accuracy. If constrained by cost and manual data collection, the MPM(0) III model offers a viable alternative without a substantial loss in accuracy.

Tools to Detect Delirium Superimposed on Dementia: A Systematic Review

To identify valid tools to diagnose delirium superimposed on dementia.

Implementing the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle into everyday care: opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned for implementing the ICU Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines.

Objective:The awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle is an evidence-based interprofessional multicomponent strategy for minimizing sedative exposure, reducing duration of mechanical ventilation, and managing ICU-acquired delirium and weakness. The purpose of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers to awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle adoption and to evaluate the extent to which bundle implementation was effective, sustainable, and conducive to dissemination. Design:Prospective, before-after, mixed-methods study. Setting:Five adult ICUs, one step-down unit, and a special care unit located in a 624-bed academic medical center Subjects:Interprofessional ICU team members at participating institution. Interventions and Measurements:In collaboration with the participating institution, we developed, implemented, and refined an awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle policy. Over the course of an 18-month period, all ICU team members were offered the opportunity to participate in numerous multimodal educational efforts. Three focus group sessions, three online surveys, and one educational evaluation were administered in an attempt to identify facilitators and barriers to bundle adoption. Main Results:Factors believed to facilitate bundle implementation included: 1) the performance of daily, interdisciplinary, rounds; 2) engagement of key implementation leaders; 3) sustained and diverse educational efforts; and 4) the bundle’s quality and strength. Barriers identified included: 1) intervention-related issues (e.g., timing of trials, fear of adverse events), 2) communication and care coordination challenges, 3) knowledge deficits, 4) workload concerns, and 5) documentation burden. Despite these challenges, participants believed implementation ultimately benefited patients, improved interdisciplinary communication, and empowered nurses and other ICU team members. Conclusions:In this study of the implementation of the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle in a tertiary care setting, clear factors were identified that both advanced and impeded adoption of this complex intervention that requires interprofessional education, coordination, and cooperation. Focusing on these factors preemptively should enable a more effective and lasting implementation of the bundle and better care for critically ill patients. Lessons learned from this study will also help healthcare providers optimize implementation of the recent ICU pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines, which has many similarities but also some important differences as compared with the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle.

Epidemiology and risk factors for delirium across hospital settings.

Delirium is one of the most common causes of acute end-organ dysfunction across hospital settings, occurring in as high as 80% of critically ill patients that require intensive care unit (ICU) care. The implications of this acute form of brain injury are profound. Across many hospital settings (emergency department, general medical ward, postoperative and ICU), a patient who experiences delirium is more likely to experience increased short- and long-term mortality, decreases in long-term cognitive function, increases in hospital length of stay and increased complications of hospital care. With the development of reliable setting-specific delirium-screening instruments, researchers have been able to highlight the predisposing and potentially modifiable risk factors that place patients at highest risk. Among the large number of risk factors discovered, administration of potent sedative medications, most notably benzodiazepines, is most consistently and strongly associated with an increased burden of delirium. Alternatively, in both the hospital and ICU, delirium can be prevented with the application of protocols that include early mobility/exercise. Future studies must work to understand the epidemiology across settings and focus upon modifiable risk factors that can be integrated into existing delirium prevention and treatment protocols.

Implementing Delirium Screening in the ICU: Secrets to Success

Objective:To review delirium screening tools available for use in the adult ICU and PICU, to review evidence-based delirium screening implementation, and to discuss common pitfalls encountered during delirium screening in the ICU. Data Sources:Review of delirium screening literature and expert opinion. Results:Over the past decade, tools specifically designed for use in critically ill adults and children have been developed and validated. Delirium screening has been effectively implemented across many ICU settings. Keys to effective implementation include addressing barriers to routine screening, multifaceted training such as lectures, case-based scenarios, one-on-one teaching, and real-time feedback of delirium screening, and interdisciplinary communication through discussion of a patient’s delirium status during bedside rounds and through documentation systems. If delirium is present, clinicians should search for reversible or treatable causes because it is often multifactorial. Conclusion:Implementation of effective delirium screening is feasible but requires attention to implementation methods, including a change in the current ICU culture that believes delirium is inevitable or a normal part of a critical illness, to a future culture that views delirium as a dangerous syndrome which portends poor clinical outcomes and which is potentially modifiable depending on the individual patients circumstances.