Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK

ObjectiveTo develop a clinical prediction model for poor outcome after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge in a large observational data set and couple this to an acute post-ICU ward-based review tool (PIRT) to identify high-risk patients at the time of ICU discharge and improve their acute ward-based review and outcome.DesignRetrospective patient cohort of index ICU admissions between June 2006 and October 2011 receiving routine inpatient review. Prospective cohort between March 2012 and March 2013 underwent risk scoring (PIRT) which subsequently guided inpatient ward-based review.SettingTwo UK adult ICUs.Participants4212 eligible discharges from ICU in the retrospective development cohort and 1028 patients included in the prospective intervention cohort.InterventionsMultivariate analysis was performed to determine factors associated with poor outcome in the retrospective cohort and used to generate a discharge risk score. A discharge and daily ward-based review tool incorporating an adjusted risk score was introduced. The prospective cohort underwent risk scoring at ICU discharge and inpatient review using the PIRT.OutcomesThe primary outcome was the composite of death or readmission to ICU within 14 days of ICU discharge following the index ICU admission.ResultsPIRT review was achieved for 67.3% of all eligible discharges and improved the targeting of acute post-ICU review to high-risk patients. The presence of ward-based PIRT review in the prospective cohort did not correlate with a reduction in poor outcome overall (P=0.876) or overall readmission but did reduce early readmission (within the first 48 hours) from 4.5% to 3.6% (P=0.039), while increasing the rate of late readmission (48 hours to 14 days) from 2.7% to 5.8% (P=0.046).ConclusionPIRT facilitates the appropriate targeting of nurse-led inpatient review acutely after ICU discharge but does not reduce hospital mortality or overall readmission rates to ICU.</jats:sec

Perioperative management of adult cadaveric and live donor renal transplantation in the UK: a survey of national practice

AbstractBackgroundThere is a limited evidence base and no national consensus regarding the perioperative management of patients undergoing renal transplantation. We developed an electronic survey to capture an overview of renal transplant perioperative practice across UK renal transplant centres and determine the need for future guidelines on patient management.MethodsA 29-question survey was developed to encompass the entire renal transplant perioperative pathway and input was sought from clinicians with expertise in renal transplant surgery, anaesthesia, nephrology and intensive care. The survey was sent to lead renal anaesthetists at each of the 23 transplant centres across the UK.ResultsA 96% response rate was achieved with 22 out of 23 centres returning complete responses. There was limited evidence of guideline-based approaches to preoperative workup. Questions regarding intraoperative fluid management, blood pressure targets, vasopressor administration and central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring identified a broad range of practice. Of note, the routine use of goal-directed fluid therapy based on cardiac output estimation was reported in six (27.3%) centres, while nine centres (40.9%) continue to target a specific CVP intraoperatively. In all, 12 (54.5%) centres perform transversus abdominis plane blocks with fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia as the most common mode of postoperative analgesia. A single centre reported a renal transplant-specific Enhanced Recovery after Surgery programme for cadaveric organ recipients.ConclusionsThis questionnaire highlighted a high degree of heterogeneity in current UK practice as regards the perioperative management of renal transplant recipients. Development of evidence-based national consensus guidelines to standardize the perioperative care of these patients is recommended in order to improve patient outcomes and focus areas of future research.</jats:sec

A systematic review of the effect of skin tone on the ability of pulse oximetry to accurately estimate arterial oxygen saturation

Background: pulse oximetry derived oxygen saturation (SpO2) is an estimate of true arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2). The aim of this review was to evaluate available evidence determining the effect of skin tone on the ability of pulse oximeters to accurately estimate SaO2.Methods: literature was screened to identify clinical and non-clinical studies enrolling adults and children when SpO2 was compared to a paired co-oximetry SaO2 value. We searched literature databases from their inception to March 20th 2023. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Certainty of assessment was evaluated using the GRADE tool.Results: forty-four studies were selected reporting on at least 222,644 participants (6121 of whom were children) and 733,722 paired SpO2-SaO2 measurements. Methodologies included laboratory studies, prospective clinical and retrospective clinical studies. A high RoB was detected in 64% of studies and there was considerable heterogeneity in study design, data analysis and reporting metrics. Only 11 (25%) studies measured skin tone in 2353 (1.1%) participants; the remainder reported participant ethnicity. 68,930 (31.0%) participants were of non-White ethnicity or had non-light skin tones. The majority of studies reported overestimation of SaO2 by pulse oximetry in participants with darker skin tones or from ethnicities assumed to have darker skin tones. Several studies reported no inaccuracy related to skin tone. Meta-analysis of the data was not possible.Conclusion: pulse oximetry may overestimate true SaO2 in people with darker skin tones. The clinical relevance of this bias remains unclear, but its magnitude is likely to greater when SaO2 is lower.<br/

Goal-Directed Haemodynamic Therapy Improves Patient Outcomes in Kidney Transplantation

Introduction: Kidney transplant graft function depends on optimised haemodynamics. However, high fluid volumes risk hypervolaemic complications. The Edwards Lifesciences ClearSight™ device permits fluid titration through markers of preload and beat-to-beat blood pressure monitoring. We evaluated the implementation of a novel goal-directed haemodynamic therapy protocol to determine whether patient outcomes had improved. Design: A retrospective evaluation of standard care versus goal-directed haemodynamic therapy in adults undergoing kidney transplantation was performed in a single centre between April 2016 and October 2019. Twenty-eight standard-of-care patients received intraoperative fixed-rate infusion and 28 patients received goal-directed haemodynamic therapy. The primary outcome was volume of fluid administered intraoperatively. Secondary outcomes included blood product and vasoactive drug exposure, graft and recipient outcomes. Results: Intraoperative fluid administered was significantly reduced in the goal-directed haemodynamic therapy cohort (4325 vs 2751 ml, P &lt; .001). Exposure to vasopressor (67.9% vs 42.9%, P = .060) and blood products (17.9% vs 3.6%, P = .101) was unchanged. Immediate graft function (82.1% vs 75.0%, P = .515), dialysis requirement (14.3% vs 21.4%, P = .729) and creatinine changes post-operatively were unchanged. In the goal-directed haemodynamic therapy cohort, 1 patient had pulmonary oedema (3.6%) versus 21.4% in the standard cohort. Patients in the goal-directed haemodynamic therapy group were more likely to mobilise within 48 hours of surgery (number needed to treat = 3.5, P = .012). Conclusions: Protocolised goal-directed haemodynamic therapy in kidney transplantation was safe and may improve patient, graft, and surgical outcomes. Clinical trials assessing goal-directed approaches are needed. </jats:p

Information Asymmetry in Hospitals: Evidence of the Lack of Cost Awareness in Clinicians

BACKGROUND: Information asymmetries and the agency relationship are two defining features of the healthcare system. These market failures are often used as a rationale for government intervention. Many countries have government financing and provision of healthcare in order to correct for this, while health technology agencies also exist to improve efficiency. However, informational asymmetries and the resulting principal-agent problem still persist, and one example is the lack of cost awareness amongst clinicians. This study explores the cost awareness of clinicians across different settings. METHODS: We targeted four clinical cohorts: medical students, Senior House Officers/Interns, Mid-grade Senior Registrar/Residents, and Consultant/Attending Physicians, in six hospitals in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Spain. The survey asked respondents to report the cost (as they recalled) of different types of scans, visits, medications and tests. Our analysis focused on the differential between the perceived/recalled cost and the actual cost. We explored variation across speciality, country and other potential confounders. Cost-awareness levels were estimated based on the cost estimates within 25% of the actual cost. RESULTS: We received 705 complete responses from six sites across five countries. Our analysis found that respondents often overestimated the cost of common tests while underestimating high-cost tests. The mean cost-awareness levels varied between 4 and 23% for different items. Respondents acknowledged that they did not feel they had received adequate training in cost awareness. DISCUSSION: The current financial climate means that cost awareness and the appropriate use of scarce healthcare resources is more paramount than perhaps ever before. Much of the focus of health economics research is on high-cost innovative technologies, yet there is considerable waste in the system with respect to overtreatment and overdiagnosis. Common reasons put forward for this include defensive medicine, poor education, clinical uncertainty and the institution of protocols. CONCLUSION: Given the role of clinicians in the healthcare system, as agents both for patients and for providers, more needs to be done to remove informational asymmetries and improve clinician cost awareness

Information Asymmetry in Hospitals: Evidence of the Lack of Cost Awareness in Clinicians

Background: Information asymmetries and the agency relationship are two defining features of the healthcare system. These market failures are often used as a rationale for government intervention. Many countries have government financing and provision of healthcare in order to correct for this, while health technology agencies also exist to improve efficiency. However, informational asymmetries and the resulting principal-agent problem still persist, and one example is the lack of cost awareness amongst clinicians. This study explores the cost awareness of clinicians across different settings. / Methods: We targeted four clinical cohorts: medical students, Senior House Officers/Interns, Mid-grade Senior Registrar/Residents, and Consultant/Attending Physicians, in six hospitals in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Spain. The survey asked respondents to report the cost (as they recalled) of different types of scans, visits, medications and tests. Our analysis focused on the differential between the perceived/recalled cost and the actual cost. We explored variation across speciality, country and other potential confounders. Cost-awareness levels were estimated based on the cost estimates within 25% of the actual cost. / Results: We received 705 complete responses from six sites across five countries. Our analysis found that respondents often overestimated the cost of common tests while underestimating high-cost tests. The mean cost-awareness levels varied between 4 and 23% for different items. Respondents acknowledged that they did not feel they had received adequate training in cost awareness. / Discussion: The current financial climate means that cost awareness and the appropriate use of scarce healthcare resources is more paramount than perhaps ever before. Much of the focus of health economics research is on high-cost innovative technologies, yet there is considerable waste in the system with respect to overtreatment and overdiagnosis. Common reasons put forward for this include defensive medicine, poor education, clinical uncertainty and the institution of protocols. / Conclusion: Given the role of clinicians in the healthcare system, as agents both for patients and for providers, more needs to be done to remove informational asymmetries and improve clinician cost awareness