Intensivists' base specialty of training is associated with variations in mortality and practice patterns

YesFunding provided by the Open Access Authors Fund

What is the value and impact of quality and safety teams? A scoping review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the literature about the establishment and impact of quality and safety team initiatives in acute care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Studies were identified through electronic searches of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ABI Inform, Cochrane databases. Grey literature and bibliographies were also searched. Qualitative or quantitative studies that occurred in acute care, describing how quality and safety teams were established or implemented, the impact of teams, or the barriers and/or facilitators of teams were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study design, sample, interventions, and outcomes. Quality assessment of full text articles was done independently by two reviewers. Studies were categorized according to dimensions of quality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 6,674 articles identified, 99 were included in the study. The heterogeneity of studies and results reported precluded quantitative data analyses. Findings revealed limited information about attributes of successful and unsuccessful team initiatives, barriers and facilitators to team initiatives, unique or combined contribution of selected interventions, or how to effectively establish these teams.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Not unlike systematic reviews of quality improvement collaboratives, this broad review revealed that while teams reported a number of positive results, there are many methodological issues. This study is unique in utilizing traditional quality assessment and more novel methods of quality assessment and reporting of results (SQUIRE) to appraise studies. Rigorous design, evaluation, and reporting of quality and safety team initiatives are required.</p

External cooling applied to febrile patients with septic shock: Control for cointerventions?

It is with great interest that we read the multicenter, randomized “Sepsiscool” clinical trial by Schortgen and colleagues investigating the effects of external cooling among febrile patients with septic shock (1). This clinical trial adds further evidence to the growing efforts to define an evidence-based approach to fever control in critically ill patients. They found that external cooling with a cooling blanket or cold bed sheets and ice packs was strongly associated with (1) a decrease in the dose of vasopressor required to maintain a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg at 12 and 24 hours after randomization; and (2) a decrease in early (14-d) mortality in febrile patients with septic shock

Antipyretic therapy in febrile critically ill adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: To determine whether fever control with antipyretic therapy effects the mortality of febrile critically ill adults. Methods: Systematic review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and 2 clinical trial registries from inception to April 2012. Randomized clinical trials comparing treatment of fever with no treatment or comparing different thresholds for fever control in adults without acute neurological injury admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) were selected for review. The effect of fever control on all-cause ICU-mortality was determined using a random effects meta-analysis. Results: Five randomized clinical trials in 399 patients were included. The temperature threshold for treatment in the intervention group was commonly 38.3°C to 38.5°C, whereas it was typically 40.0°C for controls. Four studies used physical measures and 3 used pharmacologic measures for temperature control. There was no significant heterogeneity among the included studies (I2 = 12.5%, P = .3). Fever control did not significantly effect ICU mortality with a pooled risk ratio of 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.58-1.63, P = .9). Conclusions: This meta-analysis found no evidence that fever treatment influences mortality in critically ill adults without acute neurological injury. However, studies were underpowered to detect clinically important differences.</p

Assessment of the safety and feasibility of administering anti-pyretic therapy in critically ill adults: study protocol of a randomized trial

Abstract Background Fever is one of the most commonly observed abnormal signs in patients with critical illness. However, there is a paucity of evidence to guide the management of febrile patients without acute brain injury and little is known about the biologic response to treatment of fever. As such, observational studies suggest that the treatment of fever is inconsistent. This pilot clinical trial will assess the safety and feasibility of treating febrile critically ill adult patients with an aggressive versus a permissive temperature control strategy. The biologic response to these two different temperature control strategies will also be assessed through analysis of a panel of inflammatory mediators. Findings The study population will include febrile adult patients admitted to one of two general medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Patients will be randomized to either an aggressive or permissive fever treatment strategy. The aggressive group will receive acetaminophen 650 mg enterally every 6 hours upon reaching a temperature ≥ 38.3°C and external cooling will be initiated for temperatures ≥ 39.5°C, whereas the permissive group will receive acetaminophen 650 mg every 6 hours upon reaching a temperature ≥ 40.0°C and external cooling for temperatures ≥ 40.5°C. The study will take place over 12 months with the goal of enrolling 120 patients. The primary outcome will be 28-day mortality after study enrolment, with secondary outcomes that will include markers of feasibility (e.g. the enrolment rate, and the number of protocol violations), and levels of select inflammatory and anti-inflammatory mediators. Discussion Results from this study will lead to a better understanding of the inflammatory effects of anti-pyretic therapy and will evaluate the feasibility of a future clinical trial to establish the best treatment of fever observed in nearly one half of patients admitted to adult ICUs. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01173367</p

Assessment of the safety and feasibility of administering antipyretic therapy in critically ill adults: A pilot randomized clinical trial

Purpose: To assess the safety and feasibility of treating critically ill adults with different fever control strategies. Methods: This was a pilot, open-label clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01173367) that randomized febrile patients to an aggressive or permissive fever control strategy. For the aggressive and permissive groups, antipyretic therapy (acetaminophen, physical cooling) was administered when the temperature was ≥ 38.3°C and ≥ 40.0°C respectively. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Results: Two hundred patients experienced a fever (31% of the originally projected estimate), among which 26 were randomized to the aggressive (n = 14) or permissive (n = 12) arm. The aggressive group received a greater dose of acetaminophen (2275 mg vs 0 mg, P = .0001), and more frequently received physical cooling than patients in the permissive group (57% vs 8%, P = .01). The mean daily temperature was lower in the aggressive group (37.8°C vs 38.0°C, P = .02). There was no difference in the primary outcome (21% vs 17%, P = 1.0) or in any safety outcome between the treatment groups. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of administering antipyretic therapy in critically ill adults. The key finding was a lower than expected incidence of fever.</p

Assessment of the safety and feasibility of administering anti-pyretic therapy in critically ill adults:Study protocol of a randomized trial

Background: Fever is one of the most commonly observed abnormal signs in patients with critical illness. However, there is a paucity of evidence to guide the management of febrile patients without acute brain injury and little is known about the biologic response to treatment of fever. As such, observational studies suggest that the treatment of fever is inconsistent. This pilot clinical trial will assess the safety and feasibility of treating febrile critically ill adult patients with an aggressive versus a permissive temperature control strategy. The biologic response to these two different temperature control strategies will also be assessed through analysis of a panel of inflammatory mediators. Findings. The study population will include febrile adult patients admitted to one of two general medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Patients will be randomized to either an aggressive or permissive fever treatment strategy. The aggressive group will receive acetaminophen 650 mg enterally every 6 hours upon reaching a temperature 38.3°C and external cooling will be initiated for temperatures 39.5°C, whereas the permissive group will receive acetaminophen 650 mg every 6 hours upon reaching a temperature 40.0°C and external cooling for temperatures 40.5°C. The study will take place over 12 months with the goal of enrolling 120 patients. The primary outcome will be 28-day mortality after study enrolment, with secondary outcomes that will include markers of feasibility (e.g. the enrolment rate, and the number of protocol violations), and levels of select inflammatory and anti-inflammatory mediators. Discussion. Results from this study will lead to a better understanding of the inflammatory effects of anti-pyretic therapy and will evaluate the feasibility of a future clinical trial to establish the best treatment of fever observed in nearly one half of patients admitted to adult ICUs.</p