A snapshot of compliance with the sepsis six care bundle in two acute hospitals in the West Midlands, UK

The sepsis six care bundle has been adopted by hospitals in England and Wales for the management of patients with sepsis, with the aim of increasing survival when all elements of the bundle are achieved. To assess compliance with the Sepsis Six Care Bundle in two acute NHS hospitals in the West Midlands. Adults admitted to hospital over a 24-hour period were screened for sepsis. Sepsis was identified using the Systemic Inflammatory Response (SIRS) criteria and the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score. Adherence to the Sepsis Six Care Bundle was assessed. 249 patients were screened and 24 patients were identified as having sepsis (9.6%). One patient received all six elements of the bundle. Compliance was highest for giving intravenous fluids (58.3%) and antibiotics (58.3%), and lowest for measuring urine output (16.7%). Further research is needed to establish the reasons for low compliance. Frankling C, Patel J, Sharif B, Melody T, Yeung J, Gao F, et al. A Snapshot of Compliance with the Sepsis Six Care Bundle in Two Acute Hospitals in the West Midlands, UK. Indian J Crit Care Med 2019;23(7):310-315

The medicolegal landscape through the lens of COVID-19:time for reform

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought out the best of the health and social care workforce globally, as acknowledged by the public. But the clapping has now stopped. Over 50,000 people who tested positive for coronavirus in the UK have died, a tragic figure that is more than double the UK Government's early ‘best case scenario’ estimate. Each death represents a life lost too soon, leaving behind grieving family and friends. At the same time, doctors and other healthcare professionals are exhausted and anxious, fearing both the implications of a second wave, and possible repercussions from decisions made under the strain of the pandemic.There has been polarised debate around whether doctors should be granted immunity from civil and criminal negligence claims and regulatory proceedings arising from treatment provided during COVID-19.1,2 Here, we argue that this focus on temporary statutory immunity is a distraction from pre-existing concerns that several aspects of the current medicolegal system are not fit for purpose – for doctors or for patients. Areas where there is no ‘quick fix’ include: the need for reform of the clinical negligence system; concerns in relation to regulatory proceedings; and the potential for BAME (black, Asian, and minority ethnic) doctors (and patients) to be disproportionately impacted in both areas. These issues are critical, since they each have a direct impact on multiple stakeholders, including on those who deliver and receive healthcare. However, there has been a tendency for these to be considered from single-minded viewpoints; accordingly, we aim in this paper to provide a more holistic view. Rather than pursuing immunity legislation, we say that the time is right for more comprehensive action, including an independent Public Inquiry to scrutinise these issues, taking into account all of the interests engaged (Figure 1)

The medicolegal landscape through the lens of COVID-19:time for reform

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought out the best of the health and social care workforce globally, as acknowledged by the public. But the clapping has now stopped. Over 50,000 people who tested positive for coronavirus in the UK have died, a tragic figure that is more than double the UK Government's early ‘best case scenario’ estimate. Each death represents a life lost too soon, leaving behind grieving family and friends. At the same time, doctors and other healthcare professionals are exhausted and anxious, fearing both the implications of a second wave, and possible repercussions from decisions made under the strain of the pandemic.There has been polarised debate around whether doctors should be granted immunity from civil and criminal negligence claims and regulatory proceedings arising from treatment provided during COVID-19.1,2 Here, we argue that this focus on temporary statutory immunity is a distraction from pre-existing concerns that several aspects of the current medicolegal system are not fit for purpose – for doctors or for patients. Areas where there is no ‘quick fix’ include: the need for reform of the clinical negligence system; concerns in relation to regulatory proceedings; and the potential for BAME (black, Asian, and minority ethnic) doctors (and patients) to be disproportionately impacted in both areas. These issues are critical, since they each have a direct impact on multiple stakeholders, including on those who deliver and receive healthcare. However, there has been a tendency for these to be considered from single-minded viewpoints; accordingly, we aim in this paper to provide a more holistic view. Rather than pursuing immunity legislation, we say that the time is right for more comprehensive action, including an independent Public Inquiry to scrutinise these issues, taking into account all of the interests engaged (Figure 1)

Postoperative continous positive airways pressue to prevent pneumonia, a re-intubation and death after major abdominal surgery: An International randomised trail

Background Respiratory complications are an important cause of postoperative morbidity. We aimed to investigate whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) administered immediately after major abdominal surgery could prevent postoperative morbidity. Methods PRISM was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 70 hospitals across six countries. Patients aged 50 years or older who were undergoing elective major open abdominal surgery were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive CPAP within 4 h of the end of surgery or usual postoperative care. Patients were randomly assigned using a computer-generated minimisation algorithm with inbuilt concealment. The primary outcome was a composite of pneumonia, endotracheal re-intubation, or death within 30 days after randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received CPAP. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN56012545. Findings Between Feb 8, 2016, and Nov 11, 2019, 4806 patients were randomly assigned (2405 to the CPAP group and 2401 to the usual care group), of whom 4793 were included in the primary analysis (2396 in the CPAP group and 2397 in the usual care group). 195 (8·1%) of 2396 patients in the CPAP group and 197 (8·2%) of 2397 patients in the usual care group met the composite primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·81–1·24]; p=0·95). 200 (8·9%) of 2241 patients in the CPAP group had adverse events. The most common adverse events were claustrophobia (78 [3·5%] of 2241 patients), oronasal dryness (43 [1·9%]), excessive air leak (36 [1·6%]), vomiting (26 [1·2%]), and pain (24 [1·1%]). There were two serious adverse events: one patient had significant hearing loss and one patient had obstruction of their venous catheter caused by a CPAP hood, which resulted in transient haemodynamic instability. Interpretation In this large clinical effectiveness trial, CPAP did not reduce the incidence of pneumonia, endotracheal re-intubation, or death after major abdominal surgery. Although CPAP has an important role in the treatment of respiratory failure after surgery, routine use of prophylactic post-operative CPAP is not recommended

The Baby Boom and later life: is critical care fit for the future?

Populations around the world are ageing while in many developed countries the proportion of elderly patients admitted to critical care is rising. It is clear that age alone should not be used as a reason for refusing intensive care admission. Critical care in this patient group is challenging in many ways: with advancing age, several physiological changes occur which all lead to a subsequent reduction of physical performance and compensatory capacity, in many cases additionally aggravated by chronic illness. Subsequently, these age-dependent changes (with or without chronic illness) increase the risk for death, treatment costs and a prolonged length of intensive care and hospital stay. This review explores the potential of using co-morbidity and frailty to predict outcome and to help to make better decisions about critical care admission in the elderly. The authors explore the challenges of using different frailty assessment tools and offer a model for holistic approach to answer these questions

Haemodynamic effects of lung recruitment manoeuvres

Atelectasis caused by lung injury leads to increased intrapulmonary shunt, venous admixture, and hypoxaemia. Lung recruitment manoeuvres aim to quickly reverse this scenario by applying increased airway pressures for a short period of time which meant to open the collapsed alveoli. Although the procedure can improve oxygenation, but due to the heart-lung and right and left ventricle interactions elevated intrathoracic pressures can inflict serious effects on the cardiovascular system. The purpose of this paper is to give an overview on the pathophysiological background of the heart-lung interactions and the best way to monitor these changes during lung recruitment