Erick Duan

Use of a daily goals checklist for morning ICU rounds: a mixed-methods study.

Objective:To understand the perspectives and attitudes of ICU clinicians about use of a daily goals checklist on rounds. Design:Our three data collection methods were as follows: 1) Field observations: two investigators conducted field observations to understand how and by whom the daily goals checklist was used for 80 ICU patient rounds over 6 days. 2) Document analysis: The 72 completed daily goals checklists from observed rounds were analyzed using mixed methods. 3) Interviews: With 56 clinicians, we conducted semistructured individual and focus-group interviews, analyzing transcripts using a qualitative descriptive approach and content analysis. Triangulation was achieved by a multidisciplinary investigative team using two research methods and three data sources. Setting:Fifteen bed closed ICU in a tertiary care, university-affiliated hospital. Patients:Medical-surgical ICU patients. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:Field observations: The daily goals checklist was completed for 93% of observed rounds, largely by residents (86%). The champion of the verbal review was commonly a resident (83%) or medical student (9%). Document analysis: Domains with high completion rates included ventilation, sedation, central venous access, nutrition, and various prophylactic interventions. Interviews: The daily goals checklist enhanced communication, patient care, and education. Nurses, physicians, and pharmacists endorsed its enhancement of interdisciplinary communication. It facilitated a structured, thorough, and individualized approach to patient care. The daily goals checklist helped to identify new patient care issues and sparked management discussions, especially for sedation, weaning, and medications. Residents were prominent users, finding served as a multipurpose teaching tool. Conclusions:The daily goals checklist was perceived to improve the management of critically ill patients by creating a systematic, comprehensive approach to patient care and by setting individualized daily goals. Reportedly improving interprofessional communication and practice, the daily goals checklist also enhanced patient safety and daily progress, encouraging momentum in recovery from critical illness. Daily goals checklist review prompted teaching opportunities for multidisciplinary learners on morning rounds.

β-Blockers in sepsis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials

Introduction Sepsis is a common and deadly complication of infection. As part of the host response, sympathetic stimulation can result in septic myocardial depression, and metabolic, haematological and immunological dysfunction. Administration of β-blockers may attenuate this pathophysiological response to infection, but the effects on clinical outcomes are unknown. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the efficacy and safety of β-blockers in adults with sepsis using data from randomised control trials. Methods and analysis We will identify randomised control trials comparing treatment with β-blockers, versus placebo or standard care in adults with sepsis. Data sources will include MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, clinical trial registries and conference proceedings. Two reviewers will independently determine trial eligibility. For each included trial, we will conduct duplicate independent data extraction, risk of bias assessment and evaluation of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Ethics and dissemination Our systematic review will evaluate the effects of β-blockers in adults with sepsis, comprehensively summarising and appraising the available evidence from randomised control trials. The results of this systematic review will help clinicians treating patients with sepsis to understand the potential role of β-blockade, and inform future research on this topic. Our findings will be disseminated through conference presentation and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number CRD42016036933.

Corticosteroids in sepsis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis (protocol)

Introduction Sepsis is associated with a dysregulated host response to infection and impaired endogenous corticosteroid metabolism. As such, therapeutic use of exogenous corticosteroids is a promising adjunctive intervention. Despite a large number of trials examining this research question, uncertainty persists regarding the effect of corticosteroids on survival in sepsis. Several large randomised controlled trials have been published recently prompting a re-evaluation of the available literature. Methods and analysis A rigorous and reproducible search and screening process from a Cochrane review on the same topic was comprehensive to October 2014. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane trial registry and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible randomised controlled trials investigating the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis from September 2014. Outcomes have been chosen by a semi-independent guideline panel, created in the context of a parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendation on the topic. This panel includes clinicians, content experts, methodologists and patient representatives, who will help identify patient-important outcomes that are critical for deciding whether to use or not use corticosteroids in sepsis. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify eligible studies; a third reviewer will resolve any disagreements. We will use RevMan to pool effect estimates from included studies for each outcome using a random-effect model. We will present the results as relative risk with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes and as mean difference or standardised mean difference for continuous outcomes with 95% CI. We will assess the certainty of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We will conduct a priori subgroup analyses, which have been chosen by the parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendation panel. Ethics and dissemination The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the updated evidence on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis. Trial registration number CRD42017058537.

Contemporary Ventilation Strategies And Adjunctive Therapies For Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (Ards)

Over the past 5 years, several interventions have been shown in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to reduce mortality in patients with ARDS. The current use of these interventions in clinical practice, along with those of unproven benefit, is unknown.

The Deferred Consent Model in a Prospective Observational Study Evaluating Myocardial Injury in the Intensive Care Unit

Background: Informed consent is a hallmark of ethical clinical research. An inherent challenge in critical care research is obtaining consent when patients lack decision-making capacity. One solution is deferred consent, which is often used for studies that are low risk or involve emergency interventions. Our objective was to describe a deferred consent model in a low-risk critical care study. Methods: Prognostic Value of Elevated Troponins in Critical Illness Study was a prospective, pilot observational study of critically ill patients in 3 intensive care units, involving serial electrocardiograms and cardiac biomarkers. Newly admitted patients were enrolled over 1 month. When possible, informed consent was obtained a priori from the patient or substitute decision maker (SDM); otherwise, consent was deferred until the patient regained consent capacity or until their SDM was available. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between patient’s sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, study center, person providing consent (patient vs SDM), method of consent (telephone vs in person), and the provision or not of informed consent. Results: The overall consent rate was 80.1% (213 of 266 persons approached). Of the 53 persons declining consent, 37 (69.8%) agreed to the use of data collected up until that point. Over half of all consent encounters were with patients rather than SDMs. Median interval delay between enrollment and the consent encounter was 1 day. On multivariate analysis, the only variable associated with consent was male sex of the patient (odds ratio for males 2.59, confidence interval: 1.19-5.63). Conclusion: Deferred consent facilitates implementation of time-sensitive research protocols until a consent encounter is possible. As a feasible alternative to exclusive a priori consent, the deferred consent model can be useful in low-risk studies in critically ill patients.

Canadian Critical Care Society revised process for guideline development and endorsement

To the Editor, Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are ‘‘statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options’’. Healthcare workers struggle to keep up with rapidly evolving scientific literature. In theory, CPGs constitute a comprehensive overview of the best available evidence addressing a specific clinical question and take into account considerations such as certainty in the evidence, patients’ values and preferences, and resource use or cost. These factors are used to generate actionable and trustworthy recommendations, which may inform clinician-patient discussions and shared decision-making. Reducing the gap between scientific evidence and actual practice may improve the safety and efficiency of healthcare interventions. In contrast, failure to adhere to these high standards when developing guidelines may lead to erroneous conclusions. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine published standards for the development of ‘‘Trustworthy Guidelines’’, classified by the following domains: 1) the clinical