The LiberAction Project: Implementation of a Pediatric Liberation Bundle to Screen Delirium, Reduce Benzodiazepine Sedation, and Provide Early Mobilization in a Human Resource-Limited Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Background: Delirium, bed immobilization, and heavy sedation are among the major contributors of pediatric post-intensive care syndrome. Recently, the Society of Critical Care Medicine has proposed the implementation of daily interventions to minimize the incidence of these morbidities and optimize children functional outcomes and quality of life. Unfortunately, these interventions require important clinical and economical efforts which prevent their use in many pediatric intensive care units (PICU). Aim: First, to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a PICU bundle implementation prioritizing delirium screening and treatment, early mobilization (<72 h from PICU admission) and benzodiazepine-limited sedation in a human resource-limited PICU. Second, to evaluate the incidence of delirium and describe the early mobilization practices and sedative drugs used during the pre- and post-implementation periods. Third, to describe the barriers and adverse events encountered during early mobilization. Methods: This observational study was structured in a pre- (15th November 2019-30th June 2020) and post-implementation period (1st July 2020-31st December 2020). All patients admitted in PICU for more than 72 h during the pre and post-implementation period were included in the study. Patients were excluded if early mobilization was contraindicated. During the pre-implementation period, a rehabilitation program including delirium screening and treatment, early mobilization and benzodiazepine-sparing sedation guidelines was developed and all PICU staff trained. During the post-implementation period, delirium screening with the Connell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium scale was implemented at bedside. Early mobilization was performed using a structured tiered protocol and a new sedation protocol, limiting the use of benzodiazepine, was adopted. Results: Two hundred and twenty-five children were enrolled in the study, 137 in the pre-implementation period and 88 in the post-implementation period. Adherence to delirium screening, benzodiazepine-limited sedation and early mobilization was 90.9, 81.1, and 70.4%, respectively. Incidence of delirium was 23% in the post-implementation period. The median cumulative dose of benzodiazepines corrected for the total number of sedation days (mg/kg/sedation days) was significantly lower in the post-implementation period compared with the pre-implementation period: [0.83 (IQR: 0.53-1.31) vs. 0.74 (IQR: 0.55-1.16), p = 0.0001]. The median cumulative doses of fentanyl, remifentanil, and morphine corrected for the total number of sedation days were lower in the post-implementation period, but these differences were not significant. The median number of mobilizations per patient and the duration of each mobilization significantly increased in the post-implementation period [3.00 (IQR: 2.0-4.0) vs. 7.00 (IQR: 3.0-12.0); p = 0.004 and 4 min (IQR: 3.50-4.50) vs. 5.50 min (IQR: 5.25-6.5); p < 0.0001, respectively]. Barriers to early mobilization were: disease severity and bed rest orders (55%), lack of physicians' order (20%), lack of human resources (20%), and lack of adequate devices for patient mobilization (5%). No adverse events related to early mobilization were reported in both periods. Duration of mechanical ventilation and PICU length of stay was significantly lower in the post-implementation period as well as the occurrence of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome. Conclusion: This study showed that the implementation of a PICU liberation bundle prioritizing delirium screening and treatment, benzodiazepine-limited sedation and early mobilization was feasible and safe even in a human resource-limited PICU. Further pediatric studies are needed to evaluate the clinical impact of delirium, benzodiazepine-limited sedation and early mobilization protocols on patients' long-term functional outcomes and on hospital finances

The clinical effectiveness of an integrated multidisciplinary evidence-based program to prevent intraoperative pressure injuries in high-risk children undergoing long-duration surgical procedures: a quality improvement study

The prevention of hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) in children undergoing long-duration surgical procedures is of critical importance due to the potential for catastrophic sequelae of these generally preventable injuries for the child and their family. Long-duration surgical procedures in children have the potential to result in high rates of HAPI due to physiological factors and the difficulty or impossibility of repositioning these patients intraoperatively. We developed and implemented a multi-modal, multi-disciplinary translational HAPI prevention quality improvement program at a large European Paediatric University Teaching Hospital. The intervention comprised the establishment of wound prevention teams, modified HAPI risk assessment tools, specific education, and the use of prophylactic dressings and fluidized positioners during long-duration surgical procedures. As part of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the program in reducing intraoperative HAPI, we conducted a prospective cohort study of 200 children undergoing long-duration surgical procedures and compared their outcomes with a matched historical cohort of 200 children who had undergone similar surgery the previous year. The findings demonstrated a reduction in HAPI in the intervention cohort of 80% (p < 0.01) compared to the comparator group when controlling for age, pathology, comorbidity, and surgical duration. We believe that the findings demonstrate that it is possible to significantly decrease HAPI incidence in these highly vulnerable children by using an evidence-based, multi-modal, multidisciplinary HAPI prevention strategy

The comparison of macroseismic intensity scales

The number of different macroseismic scales that have been used to express earthquake shaking in the course of the last 200 years is not known; it may reach three figures. The number of important scales that have been widely adopted is much smaller, perhaps about eight, not counting minor variants. Where data sets exist that are expressed in different scales, it is often necessary to establish some sort of equivalence between them, although best practice would be to reassign intensity values rather than convert them. This is particularly true because difference between workers in assigning intensity is often greater than differences between the scales themselves, particularly in cases where one scale may not be very well defined. The extent to which a scale guides the user to arrive at a correct assessment of the intensity is a measure of the quality of the scale. There are a number of reasons why one should prefer one scale to another for routine use, and some of these tend in different directions. If a scale has many tests (diagnostics) for each degree, it is more likely that the scale can be applied in any case that comes to hand, but if the diagnostics are so numerous that they include ones that do not accurately indicate any one intensity level, then the use of the scale will tend to produce false values. The purpose of this paper is chiefly to discuss in a general way the principles involved in the analysis of intensity scales. Conversions from different scales to the European Macroseismic Scale are discussed