Predictors of Successful Decannulation Using a Tracheostomy Retainer in Patients with Prolonged Weaning and Persisting Respiratory Failure

Background: For percutaneously tracheostomized patients with prolonged weaning and persisting respiratory failure, the adequate time point for safe decannulation and switch to noninvasive ventilation is an important clinical issue. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the usefulness of a tracheostomy retainer (TR) and the predictors of successful decannulation. Methods: We studied 166 of 384 patients with prolonged weaning in whom a TR was inserted into a tracheostoma. Patients were analyzed with regard to successful decannulation and characterized by blood gas values, the duration of previous spontaneous breathing, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) and laboratory parameters. Results: In 47 patients (28.3%) recannulation was necessary, mostly due to respiratory decompensation and aspiration. Overall, 80.6% of the patients could be liberated from a tracheostomy with the help of a TR. The need for recannulation was associated with a shorter duration of spontaneous breathing within the last 24/48 h (p < 0.01 each), lower arterial oxygen tension (p = 0.025), greater age (p = 0.025), and a higher creatinine level (p = 0.003) and SAPS (p < 0.001). The risk for recannulation was 9.5% when patients breathed spontaneously for 19-24 h within the 24 h prior to decannulation, but 75.0% when patients breathed for only 0-6 h without ventilatory support (p < 0.001). According to ROC analysis, the SAPS best predicted successful decannulation {[}AUC 0.725 (95% CI: 0.634-0.815), p < 0.001]. Recannulated patients had longer durations of intubation (p = 0.046), tracheostomy (p = 0.003) and hospital stay (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In percutaneously tracheostomized patients with prolonged weaning, the use of a TR seems to facilitate and improve the weaning process considerably. The duration of spontaneous breathing prior to decannulation, age and oxygenation describe the risk for recannulation in these patients. Copyright (c) 2012 S. Karger AG, Base

Low-value clinical practices in injury care: a scoping review and expert consultation survey

BACKGROUND: Tests and treatments that are not supported by evidence and could expose patients to unnecessary harm, referred to here as low-value clinical practices, consume up to 30% of healthcare resources. Choosing Wisely and other organisations have published lists of clinical practices to be avoided. However, few apply to injury and most are based uniquely on expert consensus. We aimed to identify low-value clinical practices in acute injury care. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review targeting articles, reviews and guidelines that identified low-value clinical practices specific to injury populations. Thirty-six experts rated clinical practices on a 5-point Likert scale from clearly low-value to clearly beneficial. Clinical practices reported as low-value by at least one level I, II or III study and considered clearly or potentially low-value by at least 75% of experts were retained as candidates for low-value injury care. RESULTS: Of 50,695 citations, 815 studies were included and led to the identification of 150 clinical practices. Of these 63 were considered candidates for low-value injury care; 33 in the emergency room, 9 in trauma surgery, 15 in the intensive care unit and 5 in orthopaedics. We also identified 87 'grey zone' practices, which did not meet our criteria for low-value care. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 63 low-value clinical practices in acute injury care that are supported by empirical evidence and expert opinion. Conditional on future research, they represent potential targets for guidelines, overuse metrics and de-implementation interventions. We also identified 87 'grey zone' practices, which may be interesting targets for value-based decision-making. Our study represents an important step towards the de-implementation of low-value clinical practices in injury care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III

Evaluation of emergency department performance:A systematic review on recommended performance and quality-in-care measures

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of emergency department (ED) performance remains a difficult task due to the lack of consensus on performance measures that reflects high quality, efficiency, and sustainability. AIM: To describe, map, and critically evaluate which performance measures that the published literature regard as being most relevant in assessing overall ED performance. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review of review articles reporting accentuated ED performance measures was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Study eligibility criteria includes: 1) the main purpose was to discuss, analyse, or promote performance measures best reflecting ED performance, 2) the article was a review article, and 3) the article reported macro-level performance measures, thus reflecting an overall departmental performance level. RESULTS: A number of articles addresses this study’s objective (n = 14 of 46 unique hits). Time intervals and patient-related measures were dominant in the identified performance measures in review articles from US, UK, Sweden and Canada. Length of stay (LOS), time between patient arrival to initial clinical assessment, and time between patient arrivals to admission were highlighted by the majority of articles. Concurrently, “patients left without being seen” (LWBS), unplanned re-attendance within a maximum of 72 hours, mortality/morbidity, and number of unintended incidents were the most highlighted performance measures that related directly to the patient. Performance measures related to employees were only stated in two of the 14 included articles. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 55 ED performance measures were identified. ED time intervals were the most recommended performance measures followed by patient centeredness and safety performance measures. ED employee related performance measures were rarely mentioned in the investigated literature. The study’s results allow for advancement towards improved performance measurement and standardised assessment across EDs

Low-value clinical practices in adult traumatic brain injury : an umbrella review protocol

Introduction Traumatic brain injury (TBI) leads to 50 000 deaths, 85 000 disabilities and costs $60 billion each year in the USA. Despite numerous interventions and treatment options, the outcomes of TBI have improved little over the last three decades. In a previous scoping review and expert consultation survey, we identified 13 potentially low-value clinical practices in acute TBI. The objective of this umbrella review is to synthesise the evidence on potentially low-value clinical practices in the care of acute TBI. Methods and analysis Using umbrella review methodology, we will search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Epistemonikos, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and PubMed to identify systematic reviews evaluating the effect of potential intrahospital low-value practices using tailored population, intervention, comparator, outcome and study design questions based on the results of a previous scoping review. We will present data on the methodological quality of these reviews (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2), reported effect sizes and strength of evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required as original data will not be collected. Knowledge users from five healthcare quality organisations and clinical associations are involved in the design and conduct of the study. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, at international scientific meetings and to clinical, healthcare quality and patient–partner associations. This work will support the development of metrics to measure the use of low-value practices, inform policy makers on potential targets for deimplementation and in the long term reduce the use of low-value clinical practices in acute TBI care

Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To describe how frequently harm is reported in the abstract of high impact factor medical journals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p><it>Design and population</it>: We carried out a blinded structured review of a random sample of 363 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) carried out on human beings, and published in high impact factor medical journals in 2003. <it>Main endpoint</it>: 1) Proportion of articles reporting harm in the abstract; and 2) Proportion of articles that reported harm in the abstract when harm was reported in the main body of the article. <it>Analysis</it>: Corrected Prevalence Ratio (cPR) and its exact confidence interval were calculated. Non-conditional logistic regression was used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>363 articles and 407 possible comparisons were studied. Overall, harm was reported in 135 abstracts [37.2% (CI95%:32.2 to 42.4)]. Harm was reported in the main text of 243 articles [66.9% (CI95%: 61.8 to 71.8)] and was statistically significant in 54 articles [14.9% (CI95%: 11.4 to 19.0)]. Among the 243 articles that mentioned harm in the text, 130 articles [53.5% (CI95% 47.0 to 59.9)] reported harm in the abstract; a figure that rose to 75.9% (CI95%: 62.4 to 86.5) when the harm reported in the text was statistically significant. Harm in the abstract was more likely to be reported when statistically significant harm was reported in the main body of the article [cPR = 1.70 (CI95% 1.47 to 1.92)] and when drug companies (not public institutions) funded the RCTs [cPR = 1.29 (CI95% 1.03 to 1.67)].</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Abstracts published in high impact factor medical journals underreport harm, even when harm is reported in the main body of the article.</p

The Impact of Contact Isolation on the Quality of Inpatient Hospital Care

Background: Contact Isolation is a common hospital infection prevention method that may improve infectious outcomes but may also hinder healthcare delivery. Methods: To evaluate the impact of Contact Isolation on compliance with individual and composite process of care quality measures, we formed four retrospective diagnosis-based cohorts from a 662-bed tertiary-care medical center. Each cohor

Conflict of Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline Development: A Systematic Review

Background: There is an emerging literature on the existence and effect of industry relationships on physician and researcher behavior. Much less is known, however, about the effects of these relationships and other conflicts of interest (COI) on clinical practice guideline (CPG) development and recommendations. We performed a systematic review of the prevalence of COI and its effect on CPG recommendations. Methodology/Principal Findings: We searched Medline (1980 to March, 2011) for studies that examined the effect of COI on CPG development and/or recommendations. Data synthesis was qualitative. Twelve studies fulfilled inclusion criteria; 9 were conducted in the US. All studies reported on financial relationships of CPG authors with the pharmaceutical industry; 1 study also examined relationships with diagnostic testing and insurance companies. The majority of guidelines had authors with industry affiliations, including consultancies (authors with relationship, range 6–80%); research support (4–78%); equity/stock ownership (2–17%); or any COI (56–87%). Four studies reported multiple types of financial interactions for individual authors (number of types per author: range 2 to 10 or more). Data on the effect of COI on CPG recommendations were confined to case studies wherein authors with specific financial ties appeared to benefit from the related CPG recommendations. In a single study, few authors believed that their relationships influenced their recommendations. No studies reported on intellectual COI in CPGs