The Reverse-Entanglement Principle: Why Religious Arbitration of Federal Rights Is Unconstitutional

Imagine you apply to be a cashier at a supermarket. At the beginning of the interview, you sign an employment application. You don’t get the job, and your interviewer’s remarks make you suspect it’s because you are Muslim. You sue in federal court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The supermarket moves to dismiss the suit because your employment application included an agreement to arbitrate all Title VII disputes. The court dismisses your case and compels arbitration

Patterns of use of adjunctive therapies in patients with early moderate- severe Acute Respiratory Distress syndrome: Insights from the LUNG SAFE Study

Background: Adjunctive strategies are an important part of the management of ARDS. However, their application in clinical practice remains inconsistent. Research Question: We wished to determine the frequency and patterns of use of adjunctive strategies in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (PaO2/FIO2 [P/F ratio] < 150) enrolled into the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Study Design and Methods: The LUNG SAFE study was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients with severe respiratory failure, conducted in 2014 in 459 ICUs from 50 countries. The primary objective of this substudy was to determine the frequency of use of widely available (neuromuscular blockade, prone position) adjuncts vs adjuncts requiring specialized equipment (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, inhaled vasodilators, high-frequency ventilation) in patients in the first 48 h of moderate to severe ARDS (P/F ratio < 150). Results: Of 1,146 patients on invasive ventilation with moderate to severe ARDS, 811 patients (71%) received no adjunct within 48 h of ARDS onset. Of 335 (29%) that received adjunctive strategies, 252 (75%) received a single strategy, and 83 (25%) receiving more than one adjunct. Of ARDS nonsurvivors, 67% did not receive any adjunctive strategy in the first 48 h. Most patients (67%) receiving specialized adjuncts did not receive prone positioning or neuromuscular blockade. Patients that received adjuncts were more likely to have their ARDS recognized, be younger and sicker, have pneumonia, be more difficult to ventilate, and be in a European high-income country than those that did not receive adjuncts. Interpretation: Three in 10 patients with moderate to severe ARDS, and only one-third of nonsurvivors, received adjunctive strategies over the first 48 h of ARDS. A more consistent and evidence-driven approach to adjunct use may reduce costs and improve outcomes in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02010073; URL: www.clinicaltrials.go

An innovative telemedicine knowledge translation program to improve quality of care in intensive care units: protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial

Abstract Background There are challenges to timely adoption of, and ongoing adherence to, evidence-based practices known to improve patient care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Quality improvement initiatives using a collaborative network approach may increase the use of such practices. Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel knowledge translation program for increasing the proportion of patients who appropriately receive the following six evidence-based care practices: venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention; spontaneous breathing trials; catheter-related bloodstream infection prevention; decubitus ulcer prevention; and early enteral nutrition. Methods and design We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized active control trial in 15 community ICUs and one academic ICU in Ontario, Canada. The intervention is a multifaceted videoconferenced educational and problem-solving forum to organize knowledge translation strategies, including comparative audit and feedback, educational sessions from content experts, and dissemination of algorithms. Fifteen individual ICUs (clusters) will be randomized to receive quality improvement interventions targeting one of the best practices during each of six study phases. Each phase lasts four months during the first study year and three months during the second. At the end of each study phase, ICUs are assigned to an intervention for a best practice not yet received according to a random schedule. The primary analysis will use patient-level process-of-care data to measure the intervention's effect on rates of adoption and adherence of each best practice in the targeted ICU clusters versus controls. Discussion This study design evaluates a new system for knowledge translation and quality improvement across six common ICU problems. All participating ICUs receive quality improvement initiatives during every study phase, improving buy-in. This study design could be considered for other quality improvement interventions and in other care settings. Trial Registration This trial is registered with http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (ID #: NCT00332982

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

IMPORTANCE: Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. PROCESS: A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). KEY FINDINGS FROM EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. RECOMMENDATIONS: Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality

Machine-learning assisted swallowing assessment: a deep learning-based quality improvement tool to screen for post-stroke dysphagia

IntroductionPost-stroke dysphagia is common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality, rendering bedside screening of significant clinical importance. Using voice as a biomarker coupled with deep learning has the potential to improve patient access to screening and mitigate the subjectivity associated with detecting voice change, a component of several validated screening protocols.MethodsIn this single-center study, we developed a proof-of-concept model for automated dysphagia screening and evaluated the performance of this model on training and testing cohorts. Patients were admitted to a comprehensive stroke center, where primary English speakers could follow commands without significant aphasia and participated on a rolling basis. The primary outcome was classification either as a pass or fail equivalent using a dysphagia screening test as a label. Voice data was recorded from patients who spoke a standardized set of vowels, words, and sentences from the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale. Seventy patients were recruited and 68 were included in the analysis, with 40 in training and 28 in testing cohorts, respectively. Speech from patients was segmented into 1,579 audio clips, from which 6,655 Mel-spectrogram images were computed and used as inputs for deep-learning models (DenseNet and ConvNext, separately and together). Clip-level and participant-level swallowing status predictions were obtained through a voting method.ResultsThe models demonstrated clip-level dysphagia screening sensitivity of 71% and specificity of 77% (F1 = 0.73, AUC = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.78–0.82]). At the participant level, the sensitivity and specificity were 89 and 79%, respectively (F1 = 0.81, AUC = 0.91 [95% CI: 0.77–1.05]).DiscussionThis study is the first to demonstrate the feasibility of applying deep learning to classify vocalizations to detect post-stroke dysphagia. Our findings suggest potential for enhancing dysphagia screening in clinical settings. https://github.com/UofTNeurology/masa-open-source

Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries

IMPORTANCE: Limited information exists about the epidemiology, recognition, management, and outcomes of patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) incidence and outcome of ARDS and to assess clinician recognition, ventilation management, and use of adjuncts-for example prone positioning-in routine clinical practice for patients fulfilling the ARDS Berlin Definition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:The Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing invasive or noninvasive ventilation, conducted during 4 consecutive weeks in the winter of 2014 in a convenience sample of 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents. EXPOSURES:Acute respiratory distress syndrome. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was ICU incidence of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included assessment of clinician recognition of ARDS, the application of ventilatory management, the use of adjunctive interventions in routine clinical practice, and clinical outcomes from ARDS. RESULTS: Of 29,144 patients admitted to participating ICUs, 3022 (10.4%) fulfilled ARDS criteria. Of these, 2377 patients developed ARDS in the first 48 hours and whose respiratory failure was managed with invasive mechanical ventilation. The period prevalence of mild ARDS was 30.0% (95% CI, 28.2%-31.9%); of moderate ARDS, 46.6% (95% CI, 44.5%-48.6%); and of severe ARDS, 23.4% (95% CI, 21.7%-25.2%). ARDS represented 0.42 cases per ICU bed over 4 weeks and represented 10.4% (95% CI, 10.0%-10.7%) of ICU admissions and 23.4% of patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Clinical recognition of ARDS ranged from 51.3% (95% CI, 47.5%-55.0%) in mild to 78.5% (95% CI, 74.8%-81.8%) in severe ARDS. Less than two-thirds of patients with ARDS received a tidal volume 8 of mL/kg or less of predicted body weight. Plateau pressure was measured in 40.1% (95% CI, 38.2-42.1), whereas 82.6% (95% CI, 81.0%-84.1%) received a positive end-expository pressure (PEEP) of less than 12 cm H2O. Prone positioning was used in 16.3% (95% CI, 13.7%-19.2%) of patients with severe ARDS. Clinician recognition of ARDS was associated with higher PEEP, greater use of neuromuscular blockade, and prone positioning. Hospital mortality was 34.9% (95% CI, 31.4%-38.5%) for those with mild, 40.3% (95% CI, 37.4%-43.3%) for those with moderate, and 46.1% (95% CI, 41.9%-50.4%) for those with severe ARDS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among ICUs in 50 countries, the period prevalence of ARDS was 10.4% of ICU admissions. This syndrome appeared to be underrecognized and undertreated and associated with a high mortality rate. These findings indicate the potential for improvement in the management of patients with ARDS