Implementation of systematic safety checklists in a neurocritical care unit: a quality improvement study

Background and objectives Structured and systematised checklists have been shown to prevent complications and improve patient care. We evaluated the implementation of systematic safety checklists in our neurocritical care unit (NCCU) and assessed its effect on patient outcomes.Design/methods This quality improvement project followed a Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) methodology. A checklist for medication reconciliation, thromboembolic prophylaxis, glycaemic control, daily spontaneous awakening, breathing trial, diet, catheter/lines duration monitoring and antibiotics de-escalation was implemented during daily patient rounds. Main outcomes included the rate of new infections, mortality and NCCU-length of stay (LOS). Intervened patients were compared with historical controls after propensity score and Euclidean distance matching to balance baseline covariates.Results After several PDSA iterations, we applied checklists to 411 patients; the overall average age was 61.34 (17.39). The main reason for admission included tumour resection (31.39%), ischaemic stroke (26.76%) and intracerebral haemorrhage (10.95%); the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 2.58 (2.68). At the end of the study, the checklist compliance rate throughout the full NCCU stays reached 97.11%. After controlling for SOFA score, age, sex and primary admitting diagnosis, the implementation of systematic checklists significantly correlated with a reduced LOS (ß=−0.15, 95% CI −0.24 to −0.06), reduced rate of any new infections (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.87) and reduced urinary tract infections (UTIs) (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.55). Propensity score and Euclidean distance matching yielded 382 and 338 pairs with excellent covariate balance. After matching, outcomes remained significant.Discussion The implementation of safety checklists in the NCCU proved feasible, easy to incorporate into the NCCU workflow, and a helpful tool to improve adherence to practice guidelines and quality of care measurements. Furthermore, our intervention resulted in a reduced NCCU-LOS, rate of new infections and rate of UTIs compared with propensity score and Euclidean distance matched historical controls

Global Survey of Outcomes of Neurocritical Care Patients: Analysis of the PRINCE Study Part 2.

BACKGROUND: Neurocritical care is devoted to the care of critically ill patients with acute neurological or neurosurgical emergencies. There is limited information regarding epidemiological data, disease characteristics, variability of clinical care, and in-hospital mortality of neurocritically ill patients worldwide. We addressed these issues in the Point PRevalence In Neurocritical CarE (PRINCE) study, a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study. METHODS: We recruited patients from various intensive care units (ICUs) admitted on a pre-specified date, and the investigators recorded specific clinical care activities they performed on the subjects during their first 7 days of admission or discharge (whichever came first) from their ICUs and at hospital discharge. In this manuscript, we analyzed the final data set of the study that included patient admission characteristics, disease type and severity, ICU resources, ICU and hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. We present descriptive statistics to summarize data from the case report form. We tested differences between geographically grouped data using parametric and nonparametric testing as appropriate. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate factors associated with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 1545 patients admitted to 147 participating sites from 31 countries of which most were from North America (69%, N = 1063). Globally, there was variability in patient characteristics, admission diagnosis, ICU treatment team and resource allocation, and in-hospital mortality. Seventy-three percent of the participating centers were academic, and the most common admitting diagnosis was subarachnoid hemorrhage (13%). The majority of patients were male (59%), a half of whom had at least two comorbidities, and median Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 13. Factors associated with in-hospital mortality included age (OR 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.04); lower GCS (OR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.16 for every point reduction in GCS); pupillary reactivity (OR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.23 for bilateral unreactive pupils); admission source (emergency room versus direct admission [OR 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.75]; admission from a general ward versus direct admission [OR 5.85; 95% CI, 2.75 to 12.45; and admission from another ICU versus direct admission [OR 3.34; 95% CI, 1.27 to 8.8]); and the absence of a dedicated neurocritical care unit (NCCU) (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.47). CONCLUSION: PRINCE is the first study to evaluate care patterns of neurocritical patients worldwide. The data suggest that there is a wide variability in clinical care resources and patient characteristics. Neurological severity of illness and the absence of a dedicated NCCU are independent predictors of in-patient mortality

Worldwide Organization of Neurocritical Care: Results from the PRINCE Study Part 1.

INTRODUCTION: Neurocritical care focuses on the care of critically ill patients with an acute neurologic disorder and has grown significantly in the past few years. However, there is a lack of data that describe the scope of practice of neurointensivists and epidemiological data on the types of patients and treatments used in neurocritical care units worldwide. To address these issues, we designed a multicenter, international, point-prevalence, cross-sectional, prospective, observational, non-interventional study in the setting of neurocritical care (PRINCE Study). METHODS: In this manuscript, we analyzed data from the initial phase of the study that included registration, hospital, and intensive care unit (ICU) organizations. We present here descriptive statistics to summarize data from the registration case report form. We performed the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Dunn procedure to test for differences in practices among world regions. RESULTS: We analyzed information submitted by 257 participating sites from 47 countries. The majority of those sites, 119 (46.3%), were in North America, 44 (17.2%) in Europe, 34 (13.3%) in Asia, 9 (3.5%) in the Middle East, 34 (13.3%) in Latin America, and 14 (5.5%) in Oceania. Most ICUs are from academic institutions (73.4%) located in large urban centers (44% > 1 million inhabitants). We found significant differences in hospital and ICU organization, resource allocation, and use of patient management protocols. The highest nursing/patient ratio was in Oceania (100% 1:1). Dedicated Advanced Practiced Providers are mostly present in North America (73.7%) and are uncommon in Oceania (7.7%) and the Middle East (0%). The presence of dedicated respiratory therapist is common in North America (85%), Middle East (85%), and Latin America (84%) but less common in Europe (26%) and Oceania (7.7%). The presence of dedicated pharmacist is highest in North America (89%) and Oceania (85%) and least common in Latin America (38%). The majority of respondents reported having a dedicated neuro-ICU (67% overall; highest in North America: 82%; and lowest in Oceania: 14%). CONCLUSION: The PRINCE Study results suggest that there is significant variability in the delivery of neurocritical care. The study also shows it is feasible to undertake international collaborations to gather global data about the practice of neurocritical care

Research considerations for prospective studies of patients with coma and disorders of consciousness.

Funder: National Institute on Disability; DOI: https://doi.org/10.13039/100006663Funder: Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research; DOI: https://doi.org/10.13039/100009157Funder: NIDILRR; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009157Disorders of consciousness are neurological conditions characterized by impaired arousal and awareness of self and environment. Behavioural responses are absent or are present but fluctuate. Disorders of consciousness are commonly encountered as a consequence of both acute and chronic brain injuries, yet reliable epidemiological estimates would require inclusive, operational definitions of the concept, as well as wider knowledge dissemination among involved professionals. Whereas several manifestations have been described, including coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and minimally conscious state, a comprehensive neurobiological definition for disorders of consciousness is still lacking. The scientific literature is primarily observational, and studies-specific aetiologies lead to disorders of consciousness. Despite advances in these disease-related forms, there remains uncertainty about whether disorders of consciousness are a disease-agnostic unitary entity with a common mechanism, prognosis or treatment response paradigm. Our knowledge of disorders of consciousness has also been hampered by heterogeneity of study designs, variables, and outcomes, leading to results that are not comparable for evidence synthesis. The different backgrounds of professionals caring for patients with disorders of consciousness and the different goals at different stages of care could partly explain this variability. The Prospective Studies working group of the Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign was established to create a platform for observational studies and future clinical trials on disorders of consciousness and coma across the continuum of care. In this narrative review, the author panel presents limitations of prior observational clinical research and outlines practical considerations for future investigations. A narrative review format was selected to ensure that the full breadth of study design considerations could be addressed and to facilitate a future consensus-based statement (e.g. via a modified Delphi) and series of recommendations. The panel convened weekly online meetings from October 2021 to December 2022. Research considerations addressed the nosographic status of disorders of consciousness, case ascertainment and verification, selection of dependent variables, choice of covariates and measurement and analysis of outcomes and covariates, aiming to promote more homogeneous designs and practices in future observational studies. The goal of this review is to inform a broad community of professionals with different backgrounds and clinical interests to address the methodological challenges imposed by the transition of care from acute to chronic stages and to streamline data gathering for patients with disorders of consciousness. A coordinated effort will be a key to allow reliable observational data synthesis and epidemiological estimates and ultimately inform condition-modifying clinical trials

The Curing Coma Campaign International Survey on Coma Epidemiology, Evaluation, and Therapy (COME TOGETHER).

Funder: University of Innsbruck and Medical University of InnsbruckBACKGROUND: Although coma is commonly encountered in critical care, worldwide variability exists in diagnosis and management practices. We aimed to assess variability in coma definitions, etiologies, treatment strategies, and attitudes toward prognosis. METHODS: As part of the Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign, between September 2020 and January 2021, we conducted an anonymous, international, cross-sectional global survey of health care professionals caring for patients with coma and disorders of consciousness in the acute, subacute, or chronic setting. Survey responses were solicited by sequential emails distributed by international neuroscience societies and social media. Fleiss κ values were calculated to assess agreement among respondents. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 258 health care professionals from 41 countries. Respondents predominantly were physicians (n = 213, 83%), were from the United States (n = 141, 55%), and represented academic centers (n = 231, 90%). Among eight predefined items, respondents identified the following cardinal features, in various combinations, that must be present to define coma: absence of wakefulness (81%, κ = 0.764); Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) ≤ 8 (64%, κ = 0.588); failure to respond purposefully to visual, verbal, or tactile stimuli (60%, κ = 0.552); and inability to follow commands (58%, κ = 0.529). Reported etiologies of coma encountered included medically induced coma (24%), traumatic brain injury (24%), intracerebral hemorrhage (21%), and cardiac arrest/hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (11%). The most common clinical assessment tools used for coma included the GCS (94%) and neurological examination (78%). Sixty-six percent of respondents routinely performed sedation interruption, in the absence of contraindications, for clinical coma assessments in the intensive care unit. Advanced neurological assessment techniques in comatose patients included quantitative electroencephalography (EEG)/connectivity analysis (16%), functional magnetic resonance imaging (7%), single-photon emission computerized tomography (6%), positron emission tomography (4%), invasive EEG (4%), and cerebral microdialysis (4%). The most commonly used neurostimulants included amantadine (51%), modafinil (37%), and methylphenidate (28%). The leading determinants for prognostication included etiology of coma, neurological examination findings, and neuroimaging. Fewer than 20% of respondents reported routine follow-up of coma survivors after hospital discharge; however, 86% indicated interest in future research initiatives that include postdischarge outcomes at six (85%) and 12 months (65%). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide heterogeneity among health care professionals regarding the clinical definition of coma and limited routine use of advanced coma assessment techniques in acute care settings. Coma management practices vary across sites, and mechanisms for coordinated and sustained follow-up after acute treatment are inconsistent. There is an urgent need for the development of evidence-based guidelines and a collaborative, coordinated approach to advance both the science and the practice of coma management globally

Research considerations for prospective studies of patients with coma and disorders of consciousness

Funder: National Institute on Disability; DOI: https://doi.org/10.13039/100006663Funder: Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research; DOI: https://doi.org/10.13039/100009157Funder: NIDILRR; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009157Disorders of consciousness are neurological conditions characterized by impaired arousal and awareness of self and environment. Behavioural responses are absent or are present but fluctuate. Disorders of consciousness are commonly encountered as a consequence of both acute and chronic brain injuries, yet reliable epidemiological estimates would require inclusive, operational definitions of the concept, as well as wider knowledge dissemination among involved professionals. Whereas several manifestations have been described, including coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and minimally conscious state, a comprehensive neurobiological definition for disorders of consciousness is still lacking. The scientific literature is primarily observational, and studies-specific aetiologies lead to disorders of consciousness. Despite advances in these disease-related forms, there remains uncertainty about whether disorders of consciousness are a disease-agnostic unitary entity with a common mechanism, prognosis or treatment response paradigm. Our knowledge of disorders of consciousness has also been hampered by heterogeneity of study designs, variables, and outcomes, leading to results that are not comparable for evidence synthesis. The different backgrounds of professionals caring for patients with disorders of consciousness and the different goals at different stages of care could partly explain this variability. The Prospective Studies working group of the Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign was established to create a platform for observational studies and future clinical trials on disorders of consciousness and coma across the continuum of care. In this narrative review, the author panel presents limitations of prior observational clinical research and outlines practical considerations for future investigations. A narrative review format was selected to ensure that the full breadth of study design considerations could be addressed and to facilitate a future consensus-based statement (e.g. via a modified Delphi) and series of recommendations. The panel convened weekly online meetings from October 2021 to December 2022. Research considerations addressed the nosographic status of disorders of consciousness, case ascertainment and verification, selection of dependent variables, choice of covariates and measurement and analysis of outcomes and covariates, aiming to promote more homogeneous designs and practices in future observational studies. The goal of this review is to inform a broad community of professionals with different backgrounds and clinical interests to address the methodological challenges imposed by the transition of care from acute to chronic stages and to streamline data gathering for patients with disorders of consciousness. A coordinated effort will be a key to allow reliable observational data synthesis and epidemiological estimates and ultimately inform condition-modifying clinical trials

International Practice Variability in Treatment of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Prior research suggests substantial between-center differences in functional outcome following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). One hypothesis is that these differences are due to practice variability. To characterize practice variability, we sent a survey to 230 centers, of which 145 (63%) responded. Survey respondents indicated that an estimated 65% of ruptured aneurysms were treated endovascularly. Sixty-five percent of aneurysms were treated within 24 h of symptom onset, 18% within 24–48 h, and eight percent within 48–72 h. Centers in the United States (US) and Europe (EU) treat aneurysms more often endovascularly (72% and 70% vs. 51%, respectively, US vs. other p p p p p p p < 0.05). We observed significant practice variability in aSAH treatment worldwide. Future comparative effectiveness research studies are needed to investigate how practice variation leads to differences in functional outcome

Incidence and prevalence of coma in the UK and the USA.

Funder: National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation ResearchFunder: Neurocritical Care SocietyFunder: Tiny Blue Dot FoundationFunder: James S. McDonnell FoundationThe epidemiology of coma is unknown because case ascertainment with traditional methods is difficult. Here, we used crowdsourcing methodology to estimate the incidence and prevalence of coma in the UK and the USA. We recruited UK and US laypeople (aged ≥18 years) who were nationally representative (i.e. matched for age, gender and ethnicity according to census data) of the UK and the USA, respectively, utilizing a crowdsourcing platform. We provided a description of coma and asked survey participants if they-'right now' or 'within the last year'-had a family member in coma. These participants (UK n = 994, USA n = 977) provided data on 30 387 family members (UK n = 14 124, USA n = 16 263). We found more coma cases in the USA (n = 47) than in the UK (n = 20; P = 0.009). We identified one coma case in the UK (0.007%, 95% confidence interval 0.00-0.04%) on the day of the survey and 19 new coma cases (0.13%, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.21%) within the preceding year, resulting in an annual incidence of 135/100 000 (95% confidence interval 81-210) and a point prevalence of 7 cases per 100 000 population (95% confidence interval 0.18-39.44) in the UK. We identified five cases in the USA (0.031%, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.07%) on the day of the survey and 42 new cases (0.26%, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.35%) within the preceding year, resulting in an annual incidence of 258/100 000 (95% confidence interval 186-349) and a point prevalence of 31 cases per 100 000 population (95% confidence interval 9.98-71.73) in the USA. The five most common causes were stroke, medically induced coma, COVID-19, traumatic brain injury and cardiac arrest. To summarize, for the first time, we report incidence and prevalence estimates for coma across diagnosis types and settings in the UK and the USA using crowdsourcing methods. Coma may be more prevalent in the USA than in the UK, which requires further investigation. These data are urgently needed to expand the public health perspective on coma and disorders of consciousness