Ruth M. Kleinpell

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012.

Objective:To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008. Design:A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. Methods:The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations. Results:Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7–9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of ⩽ 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ⩽ 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven “absolute”‘ adrenal insufficiency (2C). Conclusions:Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the intensive care unit: an evidence-based review.

Background:Advanced practitioners including nurse practitioners and physician assistants are contributing to care for critically ill patients in the intensive care unit through their participation on the multidisciplinary team and in collaborative physician practice roles. However, the impact of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the intensive care unit setting is not well known. Objectives:To identify published literature on the role of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in acute and critical care settings; to review the literature using nonquantitative methods and provide a summary of the results to date incorporating studies assessing the impact and outcomes of nurse practitioner and physician assistant providers in the intensive care unit; and to identify implications for critical care practice. Methods:We conducted a systematic search of the English-language literature of publications on nurse practitioners and physician assistants utilizing Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases from 1996 through August 2007. Interventions:None. Results:Over 145 articles were reviewed on the role of the nurse practitioner and physician assistant in acute and critical care settings. A total of 31 research studies focused on the role and impact of these practitioners in the care of acute and critically ill patients. Of those, 20 were focused on nurse practitioner care, six focused on both nurse practitioner and physician assistant care, and five were focused on physician assistant care in acute and critical care settings. Fourteen focused on intensive care unit care, and 17 focused on acute care including emergency room, trauma, and management of patients with specific acute care conditions such as stroke, pneumonia, and congestive heart failure. Most studies used retrospective or prospective study designs and nonprobability sampling techniques. Only two randomized control trials were identified. The majority examined the impact of care on patient care management (n = 17), six focused on comparisons of care with physician care, five examined the impact of models of care including multidisciplinary and outcomes management models, and three assessed involvement and impact on reinforcement of practice guidelines, education, research, and quality improvement. Conclusions:Although existing research supports the use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in acute and critical care settings, a low level of evidence was found with only two randomized control trials assessing the impact of nurse practitioner care. Further research that explores the impact of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the intensive care unit setting on patient outcomes, including financial aspects of care is needed. In addition, information on successful multidisciplinary models of care is needed to promote optimal use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in acute and critical care settings.

Needs of family members of intensive care unit patients

To identify important needs of families of critically ill patients, and the degree to which these needs were being met, 64 family members and 58 nurses were asked to complete a modified version of the Critical Care Family Needs Inventory (Molter & Leske, 1983). Family members and nurses identified many similar important needs, such as the need to have questions answered honestly, the need to be called at home about changes in the patients condition, and the need to know why things were done for the patient. However, family members indicated that some needs were both more important and less satisfactorily met than the nurses perceived: the need to know the occupational identity of staff members, directions as to what to do at the patients bedside, and having friends for support.

Physician assistant and nurse practitioner utilization in academic medical centers.

The purpose of this study was to collect information on the utilization of physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) in academic health centers. Data were gathered from a national sample of University HealthSystem Consortium member academic medical centers (AMCs). PAs and NPs have been integrated into most services of respondent AMCs, where they are positively rated for the value they bring to these organizations. The primary reason cited by most AMCs for employing PAs and NPs was Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident duty hour restrictions (26.9%). Secondary reasons for employing PAs and NPs include increasing patient throughput (88%), increasing patient access (77%), improving patient safety/quality (77%), reducing length of stay (73%), and improving continuity of care (73%). However, 69% of AMCs report they have not successfully documented the financial impact of PA/NP practice or outcomes associated with individual PA or NP care.

ICU Admission, Discharge, and Triage Guidelines: A Framework to Enhance Clinical Operations, Development of Institutional Policies, and Further Research.

Objectives:To update the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s guidelines for ICU admission, discharge, and triage, providing a framework for clinical practice, the development of institutional policies, and further research. Design:An appointed Task Force followed a standard, systematic, and evidence-based approach in reviewing the literature to develop these guidelines. Measurements and Main Results:The assessment of the evidence and recommendations was based on the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. The general subject was addressed in sections: admission criteria and benefits of different levels of care, triage, discharge timing and strategies, use of outreach programs to supplement ICU care, quality assurance/improvement and metrics, nonbeneficial treatment in the ICU, and rationing considerations. The literature searches yielded 2,404 articles published from January 1998 to October 2013 for review. Following the appraisal of the literature, discussion, and consensus, recommendations were written. Conclusion:Although these are administrative guidelines, the subjects addressed encompass complex ethical and medico-legal aspects of patient care that affect daily clinical practice. A limited amount of high-quality evidence made it difficult to answer all the questions asked related to ICU admission, discharge, and triage. Despite these limitations, the members of the Task Force believe that these recommendations provide a comprehensive framework to guide practitioners in making informed decisions during the admission, discharge, and triage process as well as in resolving issues of nonbeneficial treatment and rationing. We need to further develop preventive strategies to reduce the burden of critical illness, educate our noncritical care colleagues about these interventions, and improve our outreach, developing early identification and intervention systems.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident duty hour new standards: history, changes, and impact on staffing of intensive care units.

Objectives:The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently released new standards for supervision and duty hours for residency programs. These new standards, which will affect over 100,000 residents, take effect in July 2011. In response to these new guidelines, the Society of Critical Care Medicine convened a task force to develop a white paper on the impact of changes in resident duty hours on the critical care workforce and staffing of intensive care units. Participants:A multidisciplinary group of professionals with expertise in critical care education and clinical practice. Data Sources and Synthesis:Relevant medical literature was accessed through a systematic MEDLINE search and by requesting references from all task force members. Material published by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and other specialty organizations was also reviewed. Collaboratively and iteratively, the task force corresponded by electronic mail and held several conference calls to finalize this report. Main Results:The new rules mandate that all first-year residents work no more than 16 hrs continuously, preserving the 80-hr limit on the resident workweek and 10-hr period between duty periods. More senior trainees may work a maximum of 24 hrs continuously, with an additional 4 hrs permitted for handoffs. Strategic napping is strongly suggested for trainees working longer shifts. Conclusions:Compliance with the new Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour standards will compel workflow restructuring in intensive care units, which depend on residents to provide a substantial portion of care. Potential solutions include expanded utilization of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, telemedicine, offering critical care training positions to emergency medicine residents, and partnerships with hospitalists. Additional research will be necessary to evaluate the impact of the new standards on patient safety, continuity of care, resident learning, and staffing in the intensive care unit.

The impact of hospital and ICU organizational factors on outcome in critically ill patients: Results from the Extended Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care Study

Objective:To investigate the impact of various facets of ICU organization on outcome in a large cohort of ICU patients from different geographic regions. Design:International, multicenter, observational study. Setting:All 1,265 ICUs in 75 countries that contributed to the 1-day point prevalence Extended Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care study. Patients:All adult patients present on a participating ICU on the study day. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:The Extended Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care study included data on 13,796 adult patients. Organizational characteristics of the participating hospitals and units varied across geographic areas. Participating North American hospitals had greater availability of microbiologic examination and more 24-hour emergency departments than did the participating European and Latin American units. Of the participating ICUs, 82.9% were closed format, with the lowest prevalence among North American units (62.7%) and the highest in ICUs in Oceania (92.6%). The proportion of participating ICUs with 24-hour intensivist coverage was lower in North America than in Latin America (86.8% vs 98.1%, p = 0.002). ICU volume was significantly lower in participating ICUs from Western Europe, Latin America, and Asia compared with North America. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, medical and mixed ICUs were independently associated with a greater risk of in-hospital death. A nurse:patient ratio of more than 1:1.5 on the study day was independently associated with a lower risk of in-hospital death. Conclusions:In this international large cohort of ICU patients, hospital and ICU characteristics varied worldwide. A high nurse:patient ratio was independently associated with a lower risk of in-hospital death. These exploratory data need to be confirmed in large prospective studies that consider additional country-specific ICU practice variations.

Assessing Outcomes in Advanced Practice Nursing Practice: The Use of Quality Indicators and Evidence–based Practice

Advanced practice nurses (APNs) impact both patient care and healthcare systems on a daily basis. Tracking and documenting the outcomes of APN practice have become essential, due partly to the emphasis on outcomes that has become a component of the majority of healthcare initiatives. This article outlines important aspects related to assessing outcomes and discusses the use of quality indicators to demonstrate outcomes of APN practice. Examples from clinical practice are provided in order to demonstrate that assessing the outcomes of APN practice can be incorporated into daily practice as part of ongoing initiatives. In delineating the outcomes of APN care, the value of APNs can be formally acknowledged.

Acute-care nurse practitioners: roles and practice profiles.

The purpose of this study was to explore aspects of the acute-care nurse practitioner (ACNP) role. The first certification examination for ACNPs was administered in December 1995. In January 1996, all applicants were mailed a study questionnaire about their practice. Responses were received from 125 of the 136 applicants (93% response rate). Work settings included hospital-based specialty and unit-based areas, urgent-care centers, and multipractice clinics. Predominant role components were conducting histories and physical examinations, prescribing treatments, and performing therapeutic procedures. Although long hours, resistance and uncertainty about the role, and perceived low salary exist, advantages identified reflect the roles autonomy, broad scope of practice, and contributions to collaborative care. Further exploration of roles, practice issues and outcomes of care will provide additional information about this new practitioner in advanced practice nursing.

Improving Patient-Provider Communication A Call to Action

Patients who are communication impaired are at greater risk of medical error and poorer outcomes. Contributing factors that perpetuate ineffective patient-provider communication include the lack of a systematic method for nursing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of patient-provider communication needs and interventions; and a lack of standardized training of health care providers. We propose a call to action for nursing administrators to position patient-provider communication as a patient safety-care quality priority within the healthcare organization and incorporate bedside practices that achieve effective patient communication, especially with those most vulnerable to impaired communication. Effective patient-provider communication is an essential component of patient care; and in order for communication to be effective, the information must be complete, accurate, timely, unambiguous, and understood by the patient (1). By formally implementing the assessment of patient communication needs into routine care, nursing administrators will create a sense of accountability among bedside nurses to meet the needs of patients who are communication-vulnerable. A patients right to effective patient-provider communication is supported by accreditation standards (2), regulatory guidelines (3, 4), and patient rights declarations (5, 6). Patients have the right to be informed about the care they receive, make educated decisions about their care, and have the right to be listened to by their providers. However, patient communication needs often go unmet or are addressed inappropriately (7-10). In the case of non-English speaking patients, language access services such as the provision of in-person, telephone, or video interpreters and translated documents are either not available or infrequently used (8-11). Many health care institutions rely on ad hoc interpreters such as family, friends, or administrative and custodial staff to communicate and facilitate patient-provider communication, despite the fact that research has shown that the use of ad hoc interpreters can lead to miscommunication and medical errors (12). For critically-ill or nonspeaking patients, nonverbal behaviors, such as mouthing words, gestures, and head nods, are the principal means of communication; however these methods have been shown to be ineffective, fatiguing and inciting frustration (13-18). Often communication is attempted by simply asking yes/no questions and more appropriate communication interventions are not employed. Limiting the patients communication to yes/no answers restricts the patients responses to predictable messages only or messages that meet the a priori expectation of the patients need as determined by the clinician. The absence of effective patient-provider communication has been cited as a significant factor contributing to adverse outcomes (19, 20). In a 2007 public policy paper focused on health literacy, The Joint Commission recommended that health care organizations “make effective communication an organizational priority to protect the safety of patients” and to “incorporate strategies to address patients communication needs across the continuum of care” (21). Effective patient-provider communication is a vital component of this transformation and must be prioritized to improve patient safety.