Mortality and quality of life in the five years after severe sepsis

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Bearing witness and being bounded; the experiences of nurses in adult critical care in relation to the survivorship needs of patients and families

Aim: To discern and understand the responses of nurses to the survivorship needs of patients and family members in adult critical care units. Background: The critical care environment is a demanding place of work which may limit nurses to immediacy of care, such is the proximity to death and the pressure of work. Design: A constructivist grounded theory approach with constant comparative analysis. Methods: As part of a wider study and following ethical approval, eleven critical care nurses working within a general adult critical care unit were interviewed with respect to their experiences in meeting the psychosocial needs of patients and family members. Through the process of constant comparative analysis an overarching selective code was constructed. EQUATOR guidelines for qualitative research (COREQ) applied. Results: The data illuminated a path of developing expertise permitting integration of physical, psychological and family care with technology and humanity. Gaining such proficiency is demanding and the data presented reveals the challenges that nurses experience along the way. Conclusion: The study confirms that working within a critical care environment is an emotionally charged challenge and may incur an emotional cost. Nurses can find themselves bounded by the walls of the critical care unit and experience personal and professional conflicts in their role. Nurses bear witness to the early stages of the survivorship trajectory but are limited in their support of ongoing needs. Relevance to Clinical Practice: Critical care nurses can experience personal and professional conflicts when caring for both patients and families. This can lead to moral distress and may contribute to compassion fatigue. Critical care nurses appear bounded to the delivery of physiological and technical care, in the moment, as demanded by the patient's acuity. Consequentially this limits nurses’ ability to support the onward survivorship trajectory. Increased pressure and demands on critical care beds has contributed further to occupational stress in this care setting

Burden of disease and change in practice in Critically Ill Infants with Bronchiolitis

Bronchiolitis represents the most common cause of non-elective admission to paediatric intensive care units (ICUs)

The practice of glycaemic control in intensive care units: A multicentre survey of nursing and medical professionals.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the views of nurses and physicians working in intensive care units (ICU) about the aims of glycaemic control and use of their protocols. BACKGROUND: Evidence about the optimal aims and methods for glycaemic control in ICU is controversial, and current local protocols guiding practice differ between ICUs, both nationally and internationally. The views of professionals on glycaemic control can influence their practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, multicentre, survey-based study. METHODS: An online short survey was sent to all physicians and nurses of seven ICUs, including questions on effective glycaemic control, treatment of hypoglycaemia and deviations from protocols' instructions. STROBE reporting guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Over half of the 40 respondents opined that a patient spending <75% admission time within the target glycaemic levels constituted poor glycaemic control. Professionals with more than 5 years of experience were more likely to rate a patient spending 50%-74% admission time within target glycaemic levels as poor than less experienced colleagues. Physicians were more likely to rate a patient spending <50% admission time within target as poor than nurses. There was general agreement on how professionals would rate most deviations from their protocols. Nurses were more likely to rate insulin infusions restarted late and incorrect dosage of rescue glucose as major deviations than physicians. Most professionals agreed on when they would treat hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: When surveyed on various aspects of glycaemic control, ICU nurses and physicians often agreed, although there were certain areas of disagreement, in which their profession and level of experience seemed to play a role. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Differing views on glycaemic control amongst professionals may affect their practice and, thus, could lead to health inequalities. Clinical leads and the multidisciplinary ICU team should assess and, if necessary, address these differing opinions.Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) Charity and the NUH Department of Research and Innovation University of Nottingham School of Health Sciences director of research small grant

Steroid use in PROWESS severe sepsis patients treated with drotrecogin alfa (activated)

INTRODUCTION: In a study conducted by Annane, patients with septic shock and unresponsive to adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation receiving low-dose steroid therapy had prolonged survival but not significantly improved 28-day mortality. The present study examines intravenous steroid use in PROWESS (Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis) patients meeting the Annane enrollment criteria (AEC). METHODS: Adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation tests were not done in PROWESS. Steroids were allowed but their use was not directed. Patients were identified using AEC (all of: randomization to study drug treatment within 8 hours of shock onset; infection, fever, or hypothermia; tachycardia; systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg on vasopressors; mechanical ventilation; and one of urine <0.5 ml/kg per hour, lactic acidosis, or arterial oxygen tension/inspired fractional oxygen <280). We examined steroid use and mortality data; additional analyses were done outside the 8-hour window. RESULTS: Steroid-treated patients were older, had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores and more organ dysfunctions, and were more commonly receiving mechanical ventilation. Among patients meeting AEC, regardless of steroid treatment (n = 97), mortality in the placebo and drotrecogin alfa (activated) groups was 38% (19/50) and 28% (13/47), respectively (relative risk [RR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41–1.30). When using AEC but excluding the requirement for randomization within 8 hours of shock onset (n = 612), placebo mortality was 38% (118/313) and drotrecogin alfa (activated) mortality was 29% (88/299; RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.62–0.98). Using AEC but excluding the 8-hour window and with steroids initiated at baseline and/or infusion (n = 228) resulted in mortality for placebo and drotrecogin alfa (activated) groups of 43% (51/118) and 33% (36/110), respectively (RR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.54–1.06). CONCLUSION: Patients with severe sepsis from the PROWESS trial who were likely to respond to low-dose steroids according to the AEC were those patients at a high risk for death. However, when using the AEC, regardless of steroid use, patients exhibited a survival benefit from treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated)