Tasnim Sinuff

A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians

Survey research is an important form of scientific inquiry[1][1] that merits rigorous design and analysis.[2][2] The aim of a survey is to gather reliable and unbiased data from a representative sample of respondents.[3][3] Increasingly, investigators administer questionnaires to clinicians about

Rationing critical care beds: A systematic review*

Objective:Rationing critical care beds occurs daily in the hospital setting. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the impact of rationing intensive care unit beds on the process and outcomes of care. Data Source:We searched MEDLINE (1966–2003), CINAHL (1982–2003), Ovid Healthstar (1975–2003), EMBASE (1980–2003), Scisearch (1980–2003), the Cochrane Library, PUBMED related articles, personal files, abstract proceedings, and reference lists. Study Selection:We included studies of seriously ill patients considered for admission to an intensive care unit bed during periods of reduced availability. We had no restriction on study design. Studies were excluded if rationing was performed using a scoring system or protocol and if cost-effectiveness was the only outcome. Data Extraction:In duplicate and independently, we performed data abstraction and quality assessment. Data Synthesis:We included ten observational studies. Hospital mortality rate was increased in patients refused intensive care unit admission vs. those admitted (odds ratio, 3.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.49–6.17). Factors associated with both intensive care unit bed refusal and increased mortality rate were increased age, severity of illness, and medical diagnosis. When intensive care unit beds were reduced, admitted patients were sicker, were less often admitted primarily for monitoring, and had a shorter intensive care unit length of stay, without other observed adverse effects. Conclusions:These studies suggest that patients who are perceived not to benefit from critical care are more often refused intensive care unit admission; refusal is associated with an increased risk of hospital death. During times of decreased critical bed availability, several factors, including age, illness severity, and medical diagnosis, are used to triage patients, although their relative importance is uncertain. Critical care bed rationing requires further investigation.

Does noninvasive positive pressure ventilation improve outcome in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure? A systematic review.

Context:The results of studies on noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure unrelated to cardiogenic pulmonary edema have been inconsistent. Objective:To assess the effect of NPPV on the rate of endotracheal intubation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and mortality for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure not due to cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Data Source:We searched the databases of MEDLINE (1980 to October 2003) and EMBASE (1990 to October 2003). Additional data sources included the Cochrane Library, personal files, abstract proceedings, reference lists of selected articles, and expert contact. Study Selection:We included studies if a) the design was a randomized controlled trial; b) patients had acute hypoxemic respiratory failure not due to cardiogenic pulmonary edema; c) the interventions compared noninvasive ventilation and standard therapy with standard therapy alone; and d) outcomes included need for endotracheal intubation, length of intensive care unit or hospital stay, or intensive care unit or hospital survival. Data Extraction:In duplicate and independently, we abstracted data to evaluate methodological quality and results. Data Synthesis:The addition of NPPV to standard care in the setting of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure reduced the rate of endotracheal intubation (absolute risk reduction 23%, 95% confidence interval 10–35%), ICU length of stay (absolute reduction 2 days, 95% confidence interval 1–3 days), and ICU mortality (absolute risk reduction 17%, 95% confidence interval 8–26%). However, trial results were significantly heterogeneous. Conclusion:Randomized trials suggest that patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are less likely to require endotracheal intubation when NPPV is added to standard therapy. However, the effect on mortality is less clear, and the heterogeneity found among studies suggests that effectiveness varies among different populations. As a result, the literature does not support the routine use of NPPV in all patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Clinical practice guidelines for the use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure in the acute care setting

Over the past two decades, the use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure by mask has increased substantially for acutely ill patients. Initial case series and uncontrolled cohort studies that suggested benefit in selected patients[1][1]–[

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in critical and palliative care settings: understanding the goals of therapy.

Objective:Although noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is a widely accepted treatment for some patients with acute respiratory failure, the use of NPPV in patients who have decided to forego endotracheal intubation is controversial. Therefore, the Society of Critical Care Medicine charged this Task Force with developing an approach for considering use of NPPV for patients who choose to forego endotracheal intubation. Data Sources and Methods:The Task Force met in person once, by conference call twice, and wrote this document during six subsequent months. We reviewed English-language literature on NPPV for acute respiratory failure. Synthesis and Overview:The use of NPPV for patients with acute respiratory failure can be classified into three categories: 1) NPPV as life support with no preset limitations on life-sustaining treatments, 2) NPPV as life support when patients and families have decided to forego endotracheal intubation, and 3) NPPV as a palliative measure when patients and families have chosen to forego all life support, receiving comfort measures only. For each category, we reviewed the rationale and evidence for NPPV, key points to communicate to patients and families, determinants of success and failure, appropriate healthcare settings, and alternative approaches if NPPV fails to achieve the original goals. Conclusions:This Task Force suggests an approach to use of NPPV for patients and families who choose to forego endotracheal intubation. NPPV should be applied after careful discussion of the goals of care, with explicit parameters for success and failure, by experienced personnel, and in appropriate healthcare settings. Future studies are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of using NPPV for patients who choose to forego endotracheal intubation and to examine the perspectives of patients, families, and clinicians on use of NPPV in these contexts.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia: Improving outcomes through guideline implementation.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is associated with increased duration of mechanical ventilation and increased risk of death for critically ill patients. Although scientific advances have the potential to improve the outcomes of critically ill patients who are at risk of or who have VAP, the translation of research knowledge on effective strategies to prevent, diagnose, and treat VAP is not uniformly applied in practice in the intensive care unit. Knowledge about VAP may be used more effectively at the bedside by a systematic process of knowledge translation through implementation of clinical practice guidelines. Unfortunately, there remain large gaps in our understanding of guideline implementation in the intensive care unit, specifically as it applies to guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VAP.

Implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: A Multicenter Prospective Study*

Objective:Ventilator-associated pneumonia is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia may improve outcomes, but optimal methods to ensure implementation of guidelines in the intensive care unit are unclear. Hence, we determined the effect of educational sessions augmented with reminders, and led by local opinion leaders, as strategies to implement evidence-based ventilator-associated pneumonia guidelines on guideline concordance and ventilator-associated pneumonia rates. Design:Two-year prospective, multicenter, time-series study conducted between June 2007 and December 2009. Setting:Eleven ICUs (ten in Canada, one in the United States); five academic and six community ICUs. Patients:At each site, 30 adult patients mechanically ventilated >48 hrs were enrolled during four data collection periods (baseline, 6, 15, and 24 months). Intervention:Guideline recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia were implemented using a multifaceted intervention (education, reminders, local opinion leaders, and implementation teams) directed toward the entire multidisciplinary ICU team. Clinician exposure to the intervention was assessed at 6, 15, and 24 months after the introduction of this intervention. Measurements and Main Results:The main outcome measure was aggregate concordance with the 14 ventilator-associated pneumonia guideline recommendations. One thousand three hundred twenty patients were enrolled (330 in each study period). Clinician exposure to the multifaceted intervention was high and increased during the study: 86.7%, 93.3%, 95.8%, (p < .001), as did aggregate concordance (mean [SD]): 50.7% (6.1), 54.4% (7.1), 56.2% (5.9), 58.7% (6.7) (p = .007). Over the study period, ventilator-associated pneumonia rates decreased (events/330 patients): 47 (14.2%), 34 (10.3%), 38 (11.5%), 29 (8.8%) (p = .03). Conclusions:A 2-yr multifaceted intervention to enhance ventilator-associated pneumonia guideline uptake was associated with a significant increase in guideline concordance and a reduction in ventilator-associated pneumonia rates.

Noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure near the end of life.

Rationale:For patients with acute respiratory failure who have declined intubation and resuscitation or have chosen comfort measures only, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may help them achieve important health or personal goals, or merely prolong the dying process. Objective:To determine clinicians’ attitudes to and stated use of NIV for these patients. Methods:We developed an instrument to assess the attitudes of intensivists, pulmonologists, and respiratory therapists (RTs) toward the use of NIV for patients with acute respiratory failure near or at the end of life. After assessing its psychometric properties, we mailed the survey to these clinicians at 18 Canadian and two U.S. hospitals. We analyzed factors associated with stated use of NIV for do-not-resuscitate and comfort-measures-only patients. Results:Overall, 104 of 183 (57%) physicians and 290 of 473 (61%) RTs participated. Two thirds of physicians include NIV during life support discussions with do-not-resuscitate patients at least sometimes, and 87% of RTs stated that NIV should be included in such discussions. For patients choosing comfort measures only, almost half of physicians reported including NIV as an option in their discussions at least sometimes, while fewer than half of RTs stated that these discussions should be conducted. Most (>80%) physicians use NIV and most (>80%) RTs are asked to initiate NIV for do-not-resuscitate patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Fewer clinicians report using NIV for do-not-resuscitate patients with underlying malignancy (59% of physicians, 69% of RTs) or for patients choosing comfort measures only (40% of physicians, 51% of RTs; p < .001). Conclusions:For patients with do-not-resuscitate orders, many physicians use NIV, and many RTs are asked to initiate NIV, most often to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Further study is needed on the goals of NIV near the end of life, whether these goals are understood by all stakeholders, and how well they are achieved in practice.

What really matters in end-of-life discussions? Perspectives of patients in hospital with serious illness and their families

Background: The guideline-recommended elements to include in discussions about goals of care with patients with serious illness are mostly based on expert opinion. We sought to identify which elements are most important to patients and their families. Methods: We used a cross-sectional study design involving patients from 9 Canadian hospitals. We asked older adult patients with serious illness and their family members about the occurrence and importance of 11 guideline-recommended elements of goals-of-care discussions. In addition, we assessed concordance between prescribed goals of care and patient preferences, and we measured patient satisfaction with goals-of-care discussions using the Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project (CANHELP) questionnaire. Results: Our study participants included 233 patients (mean age 81.2 yr) and 205 family members (mean age 60.2 yr). Participants reported that clinical teams had addressed individual elements of goals-of-care discussions infrequently (range 1.4%–31.7%). Patients and family members identified the same 5 elements as being the most important to address: preferences for care in the event of life-threatening illness, values, prognosis, fears or concerns, and questions about goals of care. Addressing more elements was associated with both greater concordance between patients’ preferences and prescribed goals of care, and greater patient satisfaction. Interpretation: We identified elements of goals-of-care discussions that are most important to older adult patients in hospital with serious illness and their family members. We found that guideline-recommended elements of goals-of-care discussions are not often addressed by health care providers. Our results can inform interventions to improve the determination of goals of care in the hospital setting.

Understanding and changing attitudes toward withdrawal and withholding of life support in the intensive care unit

A careful examination of our attitudes toward end-of-life care is critical to our understanding of where change is needed to improve patient outcomes. The objectives of our narrative review are 1) to review why the intensive care unit setting presents particular challenges for the delivery of optimal end-of-life care, 2) to outline how four different research methods can provide insights into our understanding of attitudes about withdrawal of life support, and 3) to suggest seven different approaches to changing prevailing attitudes toward withdrawal of life support in the intensive care unit. To better understand attitudes about end-of-life care in general and withdrawal of life support in particular, we reviewed four different sources of data: 1) decision support tools, 2) qualitative research, 3) surveys, and 4) observational studies. Understanding these attitudes offers valuable insights about strategies that may help to improve the care of dying patients and their families. There are several ways to change attitudes; the approaches we reviewed are 1) promoting social change professionally, 2) legitimizing end-of-life research, 3) determining what families of dying patients need, 4) initiating quality improvement locally, 5) evaluating the benefits and harms of new initiatives, 6) modeling quality end-of-life care for future clinicians, and 7) using narratives. Attitudes toward end-of-life care are influenced by many factors and change slowly. Our attitudes have social and personal origins; they are grounded in values that are collective and community based. Different research methods provide insights into attitudes toward death in the intensive care unit and withdrawal of life support in particular. Understanding these attitudes may offer valuable insights about strategies that should help improve the care for dying patients and their families.