Henry T. Stelfox

Clinical review: Medication errors in critical care

Medication errors in critical care are frequent, serious, and predictable. Critically ill patients are prescribed twice as many medications as patients outside of the intensive care unit (ICU) and nearly all will suffer a potentially life-threatening error at some point during their stay. The aim of this article is to provide a basic review of medication errors in the ICU, identify risk factors for medication errors, and suggest strategies to prevent errors and manage their consequences.

Medication errors in critical care: risk factors, prevention and disclosure

Mr. S, a 63-year-old man with a recent history of peptic ulcer disease who is taking proton pump inhibitor therapy (his only medication) as an outpatient, is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with respiratory distress. Community-acquired pneumonia is diagnosed, although pulmonary embolism

Enhanced protein-energy provision via the enteral route feeding protocol in critically ill patients: results of a cluster randomized trial.

Objectives:To determine the effect of the enhanced protein-energy provision via the enteral route feeding protocol, combined with a nursing educational intervention on nutritional intake, compared to usual care. Design:Prospective, cluster randomized trial. Setting:Eighteen ICUs from United States and Canada with low baseline nutritional adequacy. Patients:One thousand fifty-nine mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients. Interventions:A novel feeding protocol combined with a nursing educational intervention. Measurements and Main Results:The two primary efficacy outcomes were the proportion of the protein and energy prescriptions received by study patients via the enteral route over the first 12 days in the ICU. Safety outcomes were the prevalence of vomiting, witnessed aspiration, and ICU-acquired pneumonia. The proportion of prescribed protein and energy delivered by enteral nutrition was greater in the intervention sites compared to the control sites. Adjusted absolute mean difference between groups in the protein and energy increases were 14% (95% CI, 5–23%; p = 0.005) and 12% (95% CI, 5–20%; p = 0.004), respectively. The intervention sites had a similar improvement in protein and calories when appropriate parenteral nutrition was added to enteral sources. Use of the enhanced protein-energy provision via the enteral route feeding protocol was associated with a decrease in the average time from ICU admission to start of enteral nutrition compared to the control group (40.7–29.7 hr vs 33.6–35.2 hr, p = 0.10). Complication rates were no different between the two groups. Conclusions:In ICUs with low baseline nutritional adequacy, use of the enhanced protein-energy provision via the enteral route feeding protocol is safe and results in modest but statistically significant increases in protein and calorie intake.

Risk factors for intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome among adult intensive care unit patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionAlthough intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality among critically ill adults, it remains unknown if prevention or treatment of these conditions improves patient outcomes. We sought to identify evidence-based risk factors for IAH and ACS in order to guide identification of the source population for future IAH/ACS treatment trials and to stratify patients into risk groups based on prognosis.MethodsWe searched electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database from 1950 until January 21, 2013) and reference lists of included articles for observational studies reporting risk factors for IAH or ACS among adult ICU patients. Identified risk factors were summarized using formal narrative synthesis techniques alongside a random effects meta-analysis.ResultsAmong 1,224 citations identified, 14 studies enrolling 2,500 patients were included. The 38 identified risk factors for IAH and 24 for ACS could be clustered into three themes and eight subthemes. Large volume crystalloid resuscitation, the respiratory status of the patient, and shock/hypotension were common risk factors for IAH and ACS that transcended across presenting patient populations. Risk factors with pooled evidence supporting an increased risk for IAH among mixed ICU patients included obesity (four studies; odds ratio (OR) 5.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.92 to 13.58), sepsis (two studies; OR 2.38; 95% CI, 1.34 to 4.23), abdominal surgery (four studies; OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.85), ileus (two studies; OR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.98), and large volume fluid resuscitation (two studies; OR 2.17; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.63). Among trauma and surgical patients, large volume crystalloid resuscitation and markers of shock/hypotension and metabolic derangement/organ failure were risk factors for IAH and ACS while increased disease severity scores and elevated creatinine were risk factors for ACS in severe acute pancreatitis patients.ConclusionsAlthough several IAH/ACS risk factors transcend across presenting patient diagnoses, some appear specific to the population under study. As our findings were somewhat limited by included study methodology, the risk factors reported in this study should be considered candidate risk factors until confirmed by a large prospective multi-centre observational study.

Quality indicators for evaluating trauma care: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES To systematically review the literature on quality indicators (QIs) for evaluating trauma care, identify QIs, map their definitions, and examine the evidence base in support of the QIs. DATA SOURCES We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest available date through January 14, 2009. To increase the sensitivity of the search, we also searched the grey literature and select journals by hand, reviewed reference lists to identify additional studies, and contacted experts in the field. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION We selected all articles that identified or proposed 1 or more QIs to evaluate the quality of care delivered to patients with major traumatic injuries. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of 1 or more QIs designed to evaluate patients with major traumatic injuries (defined as multisystem injuries resulting in hospitalization or death) and focused on prehospital care, hospital care, posthospital care, or secondary injury prevention. DATA SYNTHESIS The literature search identified 6869 citations. Review of abstracts led to the retrieval of 538 full-text articles for assessment, of which 192 articles were selected for review. Of these, 128 (66.7%) articles were original research, predominantly trauma database case series (57 [29.7%]) and cohort studies (55 [28.6%]), whereas 37 (19.3%) were narrative reviews and 8 (4.2%) were guidelines. A total of 1572 QIs in trauma care were identified and classified into 8 categories: non-American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) audit filters (42.0%), ACS-COT audit filters (19.1%), patient safety indicators (13.2%), trauma center/system criteria (10.2%), indicators measuring or benchmarking outcomes of care (7.4%), peer review (5.5%), general audit measures (1.8%), and guideline availability or adherence (0.8%). Measures of prehospital and hospital processes (60.4%) and outcomes (22.8%) were the most common QIs identified. Posthospital and secondary injury prevention QIs accounted for less than 5% of QIs. CONCLUSIONS Many QIs for evaluating the quality of trauma care have been proposed, but the evidence to support these indicators is not strong. Practical recommendations to select QIs to measure the quality of trauma care will require systematic reviews of identified candidate indicators and empirical studies to fill the knowledge gaps for postacute QIs.

Evidence for quality indicators to evaluate adult trauma care: a systematic review.

Objective:Multiple quality indicators are available to evaluate adult trauma care, but their characteristics and outcomes have not been systematically compared. We sought to systematically review the evidence about the reliability, validity, and implementation of quality indicators for evaluating trauma care. Data Sources:Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library up to January 14, 2009; the Gray Literature; select journals by hand; reference lists; and articles recommended by experts in the field. Study Selection:Studies were selected that evaluated the reliability, validity, or the impact of one or more quality indicators on the quality of care delivered to patients ≥18 yrs of age with a major traumatic injury. Data Extraction:Reviewers with methodologic and content expertise conducted data extraction independently. Data Synthesis:The literature search identified 6869 citations. Review of abstracts led to the retrieval of 538 full-text articles for assessment; 40 articles were selected for review. Of these, 20 (50%) articles were cohort studies and 13 (33%) articles were case series. Five articles used control groups, including three before and after case series, a case-control study, and a nonrandomized controlled trial. A total of 115 quality indicators in adult trauma care was identified, predominantly measures of hospital processes (62%) and outcomes (17%) of care. We did not identify any posthospital or secondary injury prevention quality indicators. Reliability was described for two quality indicators, content validity for 22 quality indicators, construct validity for eight quality indicators, and criterion validity for 46 quality indicators. A total of 58 quality indicators was implemented and evaluated in three studies. Eight quality indicators had supporting evidence for more than one measurement domain. A single quality indicator, peer review for preventable death, had both reliability and validity evidence. Conclusions:Although many quality indicators are available to measure the quality of trauma care, reliability evidence, validity evidence, and description of outcomes after implementation are limited.

Frailty in the critically ill: a novel concept

The concept of frailty has been defined as a multidimensional syndrome characterized by the loss of physical and cognitive reserve that predisposes to the accumulation of deficits and increased vulnerability to adverse events. Frailty is strongly correlated with age, and overlaps with and extends aspects of a patients disability status (that is, functional limitation) and/or burden of comorbid disease. The frail phenotype has more specifically been characterized by adverse changes to a patients mobility, muscle mass, nutritional status, strength and endurance. We contend that, in selected circumstances, the critically ill patient may be analogous to the frail geriatric patient. The prevalence of frailty amongst critically ill patients is currently unknown; however, it is probably increasing, based on data showing that the utilization of intensive care unit (ICU) resources by older people is rising. Owing to the theoretical similarities in frailty between geriatric and critically ill patients, this concept may have clinical relevance and may be predictive of outcomes, along with showing important interaction with several factors including illness severity, comorbid disease, and the social and structural environment. We believe studies of frailty in critically ill patients are needed to evaluate how it correlates with outcomes such as survival and quality of life, and how it relates to resource utilization, such as length of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay and duration of hospitalization. We hypothesize that the objective measurement of frailty may provide additional support and reinforcement to clinicians confronted with end-of-life decisions on the appropriateness of ICU support and/or withholding of life-sustaining therapies.

Outcome of patients undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation after critical illness.

Objective:To examine the longitudinal outcome of a cohort of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to an acute care respiratory unit after critical illness. Design, Setting, and Patients:Prospective, observational study of 210 consecutive patients admitted to a respiratory unit of an acute, tertiary care university hospital, who had an acute critical illness with respiratory failure. The study was powered to develop multivariate regression models to investigate the relationship between patient characteristics and a) liberation from mechanical ventilation and b) survival. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:The median time to liberation from mechanical ventilation after respiratory unit admission was 14 days (interquartile range, 6–51). A total of 146 patients (69%) were off mechanical ventilation at 6 months, and 123 patients (61%) were alive at 1 yr. Patients who did not come off mechanical ventilation in the respiratory unit were seven times more likely to die within a year than those who did (odds ratio, 6.55; 95% confidence intervals, 4.04–10.63; p < .001). At least 75% of deaths occurred by consensual withdrawal of life support. Patient activity of daily living scores (0–100 scale) increased progressively from hospital discharge (24 ± 6) through 3 (54 ± 21) and 6 months (64 ± 22) (p < .001). The median cost of hospitalization for all study patients was

Hemodynamic monitoring in obese patients: the impact of body mass index on cardiac output and stroke volume.

149,624 (interquartile range,

Monitoring Amiodarone's Toxicities: Recommendations, Evidence, and Clinical Practice

102,540–225,843). Conclusions:The majority of patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation in a respiratory unit after acute critical illness are liberated from mechanical ventilation, survive, and have a steady improvement in the activity of daily living during the first 6 months after discharge. However, a substantial fraction of these patients does not wean from mechanical ventilation and dies from consensual withdrawal of life support after a prolonged and costly hospital stay.