Richard D. Branson

Critical care delivery in the intensive care unit: Defining clinical roles and the best practice model

Patients receiving medical care in intensive care units (ICUs) account for nearly 30% of acute care hospital costs, yet these patients occupy only 10% of inpatient beds (1, 2). In 1984, the Office of Technology Assessment concluded that 80% of hospitals in the United States had ICUs, >20% of hospital budgets were expended on the care of intensive care patients, and approximately 1% of the gross national product was expended for intensive care services (3). With the aging of the U.S. population, greater demand for critical care services will occur. At the same time, market forces are evolving that may constrain both hospitals’ and practitioners’ abilities to provide this increasing need for critical care services. In addition, managed care organizations are requesting justification for services provided in the ICU and for demonstration of both efficiency and efficacy. Hospital administrators are continually seeking methods to provide effective and efficient care to their ICU patients. As a result of these social and economic pressures, there is a need to provide more data about the type and quality of clinical care provided in the ICU. In response, two task forces were convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine leadership. One task force (models task force) was asked to review available information on critical care delivery in the ICU and to ascertain, if possible, a “best” practice model. The other task force was asked to define the role and practice of an intensivist. The task force memberships were diverse, representing all the disciplines that actively participate in the delivery of health care to patients in the ICU. The models task force membership consisted of 31 healthcare professionals and practitioners, including statisticians and representatives from industry, pharmacy, nursing, respiratory care, and physicians from the specialties of surgery, internal medicine, pediatrics, and anesthesia. These healthcare professionals represented the practice of critical care medicine in multiple settings, including nonteaching community hospitals, community hospitals with teaching programs, academic institutions, military hospitals, critical care medicine private practice, full-time academic practice, and consultative critical care practice. This article is the consensus report of the two task forces. The objectives of this report include the following: (1) to describe the types and settings of critical care practice (2); to describe the clinical roles of members of the ICU healthcare team (3); to examine available outcome data pertaining to the types of critical care practice (4); to attempt to define a “best” practice model; and (5) to propose additional research that should be undertaken to answer important questions regarding the practice of critical care medicine. The data and recommendations contained within this report are sometimes based on consensus expert opinion; however, where possible, recommendations are promulgated based on levels of evidence as outlined by Sacket in 1989 (4) and further modified by Taylor in 1997 (5) (see Appendix 1).

An analgesia-delirium-sedation protocol for critically ill trauma patients reduces ventilator days and hospital length of stay.

BACKGROUND Analgesics and sedatives are required to maintain a calm and comfortable mechanically ventilated injured patient. Continuous sedative infusions have been shown to lengthen mechanical ventilation and hospital length of stay. Daily interruption of sedative infusions may reduce both of these variables. Implementation of an Analgesia-Delirium-Sedation (ADS) Protocol using objective assessments with a goal of maintaining an awake and comfortable patient may obviate the need for daily interruption of infusions in critically ill trauma patients. We examined the effects of such a protocol on ventilator duration, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, hospital slength of stay, and medication requirements. METHODS A multidisciplinary team designed the protocol. Objective measures of pain (visual/objective pain assessment scale-VAS/OPAS), agitation (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-RASS), and delirium [Confusion Assessment Method {CAM-ICU}] were used. Medications were titrated to a RASS of -1 to +1 and VAS/OPAS <4. Haloperidol was used to treat delirium in CAM-ICU positive patients. Retrospective review of the local Project IMPACT database for a 6-month period in 2004 was compared with the same seasonal period in 2006 in which the ADS protocol was used. All mechanically ventilated trauma patients receiving infusions of narcotic, propofol, or benzodiazepine were included. Age, APACHE II score, Injury Severity Score, ventilator days, ventilator-free days at day 28, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay are reported as median values (interquartile range). Medication usage is reported as mean values (+/-SD). Differences in data were analyzed using Wilcoxons rank-sum test or t test, as appropriate. Gender, mortality, and mechanism of injury were analyzed using chi analysis. RESULTS A total of 143 patients were included. Patients who died during their hospitalization were excluded except in the analysis of ventilator-free days at day 28. After exclusions, 61 patients were in the control group and 58 in the protocol group. The median duration of mechanical ventilation in the protocol group was 1.2 days (0.5-3.0) which was significantly reduced compared with 3.2 days (1.0-12.9) in the control group (p = 0.027). Analysis of ventilator-free days at day 28 found that the protocol group had 26.4 ventilator-free days (13.9-27.4) compared with 22.8 days (10.5-26.9) in the control group (p = 0.007). The median ICU length of stay was 5.9 days (2.3-18.2) in the control group and 4.1 days (2.5-8.3) in the protocol group (p = 0.21). Hospital length of stay was 12 days (7-17) in the protocol group in contrast to 18 days (10-27) in the control group (p = 0.036). Opiate equivalents and propofol use per patient was significantly reduced in the protocol group from 2,465 mg (+/-1,242 mg) to 1,641 mg (+/-1,250 mg) and 19,232 mg (+/-22,477 mg) to 10,057 (+/-14,616 mg), respectively (p < 0.001, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION An objective assessment- based ADS protocol without daily interruption of medication infusion decreases ventilator days and hospital length of stay in critically ill trauma patients.

Strategies to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Update

Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format to assist acute care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing strategies to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and other ventilator-associated events (VAEs) and to improve outcomes for mechanically ventilated adults, children, and neonates. This document updates “Strategies to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Acute Care Hospitals,” published in 2008. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

Cost and complications during in-hospital transport of critically ill patients : a prospective cohort study

We prospectively studied transport of a group of 100 surgery/trauma patients and a matched control group in the ICU. APACHE II scores for the two groups were 23 +/- 6 and 20 +/- 8. During transport both groups had ECG, heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation continuously monitored. We also determined the cost and results of transport for those patients requiring diagnostic testing. There were six diagnostic tests performed: CT scan of the abdomen (39%), CT scan of the head (31%), CT scan of the chest (8%), CT scan of the cervical spine (4%), angiography (14%), and tomography (4%). Average transport time was 74 +/- 16 minutes with a range of 20-225 minutes. Physiologic changes defined as a BP +/- 20 mm Hg, heart rate +/- 20 beats/min, respiratory rate +/- 5 breaths/min, or oxygen saturation +/- 5% for 5 minutes duration occurred in 66% of transported patients and 60% of ICU patients. There were no differences in arterial blood gas levels before and during transport. In 39% of transports, the results of diagnostic testing produced a change in patient management within 48 hours. Abdominal CT scanning and angiography were associated with the highest percentage of tests leading to a management change (51% and 57%). The average charge to the patient was

Prolonged use of heat and moisture exchangers does not affect device efficiency or frequency rate of nosocomial pneumonia.

612.00 and the average cost to the hospital

Comparison of volume control and pressure control ventilation: is flow waveform the difference?

452.00. Our results suggest that while physiologic changes are frequent during transport, they are also frequent in ICU patients as a consequence of the severity of illness.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Comparison of conventional mechanical ventilation and high-frequency ventilation. A prospective, randomized trial in patients with respiratory failure.

Objective: To determine whether use of a single heat and moisture exchanger (HME) for ≤120 hrs affects efficiency, resistance, level of bacterial colonization, frequency rate of nosocomial pneumonia, and cost compared with changing the HME every 24 hrs. Design: Prospective, controlled, randomized, unblinded study. Setting: Surgical intensive care unit at a university teaching hospital. Patients: A total of 220 consecutive patients requiring mechanical ventilation for >48 hrs. Interventions: Patients were randomized to one of three groups: a) hygroscopic HME (Aqua+) changed every 24 hrs (HHME‐24); b) hydrophobic HME (Duration HME) changed every 120 hrs (HME‐120); and c) hygroscopic HME (Aqua+) changed every 120 hrs (HHME‐120). Devices in all groups could be changed at the discretion of the staff when signs of occlusion or increased resistance were identified. Measurements and Main Results: Daily measurements of inspired gas temperature, inspired relative humidity, and device resistance were made. Additionally, daily cultures of the patient side of the device were accomplished. The frequency rate of nosocomial pneumonia was made by using clinical criteria. Ventilatory support variables, airway care, device costs, and clinical indicators of humidification efficiency (sputum volume, sputum efficiency) were also recorded. Prolonged use of both hygroscopic and hydrophobic devices did not diminish efficiency or increase resistance. There was no difference in the number of colony‐forming units from device cultures over the 5‐day period and no difference between colony‐forming units in devices changed every 24 hrs compared with devices changed after 120 hrs. The average duration of use was 23 ± 4 hrs in the HHME‐24 group, 73 ± 13 hrs in the HME‐120 group, and 74 ± 9 hrs in the HHME‐120 group. Mean absolute humidity was greater for the hygroscopic devices (30.4 ± 1.1 mg of H2O/L) compared with the hydrophobic devices (27.8 ± 1.3 mg of H2O/L). The frequency rate of nosocomial pneumonia was 8% (8:100) in the HHME‐24 group, 8.3% (5:60) in the HME‐120 group, and 6.6% (4:60) in the HHME‐120 group. Pneumonia rates per 1000 ventilatory support days were 20:1000 in the HHME‐24 group, 20.8:1000 in the HME‐120 group, and 16.6:1000 in the HHME‐120 group. Costs per day were

An official American Thoracic Society/European Society of intensive care medicine/society of critical care medicine clinical practice guideline: Mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

3.24 for the HHME‐24 group,

Comparison of Blood Gases during Transport Using Two Methods of Ventilatory Support

2.98 for the HME‐120 group, and

Techniques of Emergency Ventilation: A Model to Evaluate Tidal Volume, Airway Pressure, and Gastric Insufflation

1.65 for the HHME‐120 group. Conclusions: Changing the hydrophobic or hygroscopic HME after 3 days does not diminish efficiency, increase resistance, or alter bacterial colonization. The frequency rate of nosocomial pneumonia was also unchanged. Use of HMEs for >24 hrs, up to 72 hrs, is safe and cost effective.