Jane de Lemos

Measuring quality of sedation in adult mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: the Vancouver Interaction and Calmness Scale

There are no reliable, valid, and responsive scales to measure the quality of sedation in adult critically ill patients. Our objective was to develop a summated rating scale with these properties and to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). We developed and tested the scale in an 18-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) (12-bed acute and 6-bed subacute unit). Following identification of relevant domains and item derivation, 116 observations were made on 38 patients; psychometric properties and interrater reliability were assessed to allow item reduction. The final scale consisted of two five-item subscales quantifying calmness and interaction along a continuum from 5 to 30 points. Interrater reliability was 0.89 and 0.90; internal consistency was 0. 95 for both subscales. To test construct validity, MCID, and responsiveness 302 observations were made on 54 patients. Construct validity: calmness score vs. need for further intervention to make the patient calm (R = -0.82, P < 0.001); interaction score discriminated between acute vs. subacute units, mean scores 15.28 +/- 8.26 vs. 23.54 +/- 7.42, mean difference 8.27 (95% CI - 10.32 to -6.22); MCID - 2.2 and 2.5 for the calmness and interaction subscales; Guyatts responsiveness statistics - 1.4 and 2.3. The Vancouver Interaction and Calmness Scale (VICS) is reliable, valid, and responsive.

Paralysis in the critically ill: intermittent bolus pancuronium compared with continuous infusion.

OBJECTIVES To compare recovery times from neuromuscular blockade between two groups of critically ill patients in whom pancuronium was administered by continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injection. To compare the mean pancuronium requirements (milligrams per kilogram per hour) and to assess the incidence of prolonged recovery times (>12 hrs) and residual muscle weakness. DESIGN Prospective, observational cohort. SETTING Intensive care unit in a university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS A total of 30 mechanically ventilated patients who required pharmacologic paralysis. Patients were excluded if they had renal failure (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min), heart rate >130 beats/min, hepatic failure, peripheral nerve disease or myopathy, stroke, spinal cord damage, or myasthenia gravis. INTERVENTIONS Patients were assigned to receive pancuronium either by continuous infusion (n = 14) or intermittent bolus (n = 16). Depth of paralysis was titrated to maintain one or two responses to Train-of-Four stimulation with an accelerograph and desired clinical goals. Recovery time was defined as time from discontinuation of muscle relaxant until the amplitude of the fourth twitch, measured every 15-30 min using an accelerograph, was 70% the amplitude of the first twitch (Train-of-Four > or = 0.7). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS These patients included the only three patients with status asthmaticus in our study. The groups were similar with respect to age, sex, weight, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, mode of ventilation, creatinine clearance, indications for paralysis, and duration of pancuronium administration. The median time for patients to recover from paralysis was 3.5 hrs (95% confidence interval, 1.82-5.18) in the infusion group vs. 6.3 hrs (95% confidence interval, 3.40-9.19) in the intermittent bolus group (p = .10). Less drug was administered in the intermittent group (mean, 0.02+/-0.01 mg/kg/hr) than by infusion (mean, 0.04+/-0.01 mg/kg/hr; p < .001). Six patients (five in the infusion group and one in the intermittent group) developed persistent severe muscle weakness. In addition, six different patients (three from each group) had prolonged recovery >12 hrs. CONCLUSIONS Our study suggests that recovery time after paralysis with continuous infusion is faster than that after intermittent bolus injection. Although more pancuronium was administered in the continuous-infusion group, recovery time was not prolonged as a consequence. It is uncertain whether pancuronium given by infusion increases the risk of persistent muscle weakness.

Reasons for non‐use of proven pharmacotherapeutic interventions: systematic review and framework development

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The quality of patient care and safety is dependent on addressing both errors of commission (e.g. overuse of medications) and errors of omission (e.g. patients receiving too little care). Despite guidelines recommending the use of certain proven pharmacotherapeutic interventions, a large gap exists between the patients that have an indication for, and those that actually receive such interventions. To address how the rate of implementation of proven interventions can be improved is dependent on a comprehensive knowledge of the factors contributing to their underuse. The aim of the review is to create an evidence-based framework of reasons why eligible patients do not receive proven pharmacotherapeutic interventions. METHODS A systemic review of the published reasons for non-use based on the Cochrane methodology. RESULTS The systematic review identified 67 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The reasons for non-use were extracted from the studies and a framework was created from the results. CONCLUSIONS The factors associated with lack of implementation of proven pharmacotherapeutic interventions are complex and heterogeneous but can be understood from the perspectives of clinicians, patients and health care delivery systems. Efforts to increase the utilization of proven interventions should focus on disease/intervention-specific programmes that take into account the identified modifiable clinician, patient and system factors.

Clinician-driven value scoring to prioritise quality actions: a study of general medicine hospital pharmacists

As with many clinical services, the number of patients requiring clinical pharmacist care exceeds the supply of those trained to provide it, so leaders and clinicians must make choices about which services to provide. A ‘Quality Actions’ (QA) framework has been proposed that provides for clinician‐driven, systematic, transparent quantitative characterisation of individual QAs in terms of their value. This forms a basis for enhancement of quality of care.