Interrater reliability of surveillance for ventilator-associated events and pneumonia

OBJECTIVETo compare interrater reliabilities for ventilator-associated event (VAE) surveillance, traditional ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) surveillance, and clinical diagnosis of VAP by intensivists.DESIGNA retrospective study nested within a prospective multicenter quality improvement study.SETTINGIntensive care units (ICUs) within 5 hospitals of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Epicenters.PATIENTSPatients who underwent mechanical ventilation.METHODSWe selected 150 charts for review, including all VAEs and traditionally defined VAPs identified during the primary study and randomly selected charts of patients without VAEs or VAPs. Each chart was independently reviewed by 2 research assistants (RAs) for VAEs, 2 hospital infection preventionists (IPs) for traditionally defined VAP, and 2 intensivists for any episodes of pulmonary deterioration. We calculated interrater agreement using κ estimates.RESULTSThe 150 selected episodes spanned 2,500 ventilator days. In total, 93–96 VAEs were identified by RAs; 31–49 VAPs were identified by IPs, and 29–35 VAPs were diagnosed by intensivists. Interrater reliability between RAs for VAEs was high (κ, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59–0.81). Agreement between IPs using traditional VAP criteria was slight (κ, 0.12; 95% CI, −0.05–0.29). Agreement between intensivists was slight regarding episodes of pulmonary deterioration (κ 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05–0.39) and was fair regarding whether episodes of deterioration were attributable to clinically defined VAP (κ, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17–0.51). The clinical correlation between VAE surveillance and intensivists’ clinical assessments was poor.CONCLUSIONSProspective surveillance using VAE criteria is more reliable than traditional VAP surveillance and clinical VAP diagnosis; the correlation between VAEs and clinically recognized pulmonary deterioration is poor.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:172–178</jats:sec

A Randomized Trial of Nighttime Physician Staffing in an Intensive Care Unit

Background Increasing numbers of intensive care units (ICUs) are adopting the practice of nighttime intensivist staffing despite the lack of experimental evidence of its effectiveness. Methods We conducted a 1-year randomized trial in an academic medical ICU of the effects of nighttime staffing with in-hospital intensivists (intervention) as compared with nighttime coverage by daytime intensivists who were available for consultation by telephone (control). We randomly assigned blocks of 7 consecutive nights to the intervention or the control strategy. The primary outcome was patients’ length of stay in the ICU. Secondary outcomes were patients’ length of stay in the hospital, ICU and in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, and rates of readmission to the ICU. For length-of-stay outcomes, we performed time-to-event analyses, with data censored at the time of a patient’s death or transfer to another ICU. Results A total of 1598 patients were included in the analyses. The median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III score (in which scores range from 0 to 299, with higher scores indicating more severe illness) was 67 (interquartile range, 47 to 91), the median length of stay in the ICU was 52.7 hours (interquartile range, 29.0 to 113.4), and mortality in the ICU was 18%. Patients who were admitted on intervention days were exposed to nighttime intensivists on more nights than were patients admitted on control days (median, 100% of nights [interquartile range, 67 to 100] vs. median, 0% [interquartile range, 0 to 33]; P\u3c0.001). Nonetheless, intensivist staffing on the night of admission did not have a significant effect on the length of stay in the ICU (rate ratio for the time to ICU discharge, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 1.09; P=0.72), ICU mortality (relative risk, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.28), or any other end point. Analyses restricted to patients who were admitted at night showed similar results, as did sensitivity analyses that used different definitions of exposure and outcome. Conclusions In an academic medical ICU in the United States, nighttime in-hospital intensivist staffing did not improve patient outcomes. (Funded by University of Pennsylvania Health System and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01434823.

Staffing of healthcare workers and patient mortality: randomized trials needed.

In a Perspective accompanying a study by Benjamin Bray and colleagues, Meeta Kerlin discusses the evidence that physician and nurse workforces are associated with patient mortality, why clearer guidelines for appropriate workforce size are not available, and the next steps needed to address the knowledge gaps. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Burnout, and joy, in the profession of critical care medicine

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2020. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2020. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http:// www.springer.com/series/8901