The validity and reliability of the Portuguese versions of three tools used to diagnose delirium in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to compare the sensitivity and specificity of three diagnostic tools for delirium (the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist, the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units and the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units Flowsheet) in a mixed population of critically ill patients, and to validate the Brazilian Portuguese Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units. METHODS: The study was conducted in four intensive care units in Brazil. Patients were screened for delirium by a psychiatrist or neurologist using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Patients were subsequently screened by an intensivist using Portuguese translations of the three tools. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen patients were evaluated and 38.6% were diagnosed with delirium by the reference rater. The Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units had a sensitivity of 72.5% and a specificity of 96.2%; the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units Flowsheet had a sensitivity of 72.5% and a specificity of 96.2%; the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist had a sensitivity of 96.0% and a specificity of 72.4%. There was strong agreement between the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units and the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units Flowsheet (kappa coefficient = 0.96) CONCLUSION: All three instruments are effective diagnostic tools in critically ill intensive care unit patients. In addition, the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units is a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of delirium among critically ill patients

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42\ub74% vs 44\ub72%; absolute difference \u20131\ub769 [\u20139\ub758 to 6\ub711] p=0\ub767; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5\u20138] vs 6 [5\u20138] cm H2O; p=0\ub70011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30\ub75% vs 19\ub79%; p=0\ub70004; adjusted effect 16\ub741% [95% CI 9\ub752\u201323\ub752]; p<0\ub70001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0\ub780 [95% CI 0\ub775\u20130\ub786]; p<0\ub70001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status. Funding: No funding

Remote sensing of Arctic atmospheric aerosols

In this chapter remote sensing techniques as applied to studies of Arctic aerosol are surveyed. They include the analysis of ground and shipborne observations of atmospheric aerosol using sunphotometers and also airborne/satellite observations using optical instrumentation (lidars, imagers, radiometers)

Drug prescription in Italian Residential Facilities [La prescrizione di psicofarmaci nelle Strutture Residenziali Italiane]

Aims - To investigate in a representative national sample (N=2,962) of patients living in Residential Facilities (RFs) patterns of polypharmacy as well as related variables, association between diagnoses and therapeutic patterns, and the rate of adverse events. Methods - Structured interviews focusing on each patient were conducted by trained research assistants with the manager and staff of each RF. Patients were rated with the HoNOS and the SOFAS, and comprehensive information about their sociodemographic and clinical status, and their pharmacological regimes were collected. Results - Conventional antipsychotics and second-generation antipsychotics were prescribed to 65% and 43% of the sample, respectively. Benzodiazepines were prescribed to two-thirds of the sample, while antidepressants were the least-used class of psychotropics. Polypharmacy was common: on average, each treated patient was taking 2.7 drugs (\ub11.1); antipsychotic polypharmacy was also common. Many prescriptions were loosely related to specific diagnoses. Antiparkinsonianian drugs were prescribed to approximately 1/4 of the sample. Mild or severe adverse events in the previous month were reported for 9.9% and 1.4% of the sample, respectively. About 15% of patients suffered from tardive dyskinesia. Conclusions - Psychotropic drug prescription patterns for severe patients living in RFs are only sometimes satisfactory and offer the opportunity of improvement. Specific actions are required to improve prescription patterns for severe patients in RFs

The Italian PROGRES project on non-hospital residential facilities [Le strutture residenziali psichiatriche in Italia. I risultati della fase 1 del progetto PROGRES]

Objective - The 'PROGRES' (PROGetto RESidenze' Residential Project) project has 3 aims: 1. To survey all Italian psychiatric Non-Hospital Residential Facilities (NHRF) (Phase 1); 2. To assess in detail 20% of the NHRFs and the patients living there (Phase 2); and 3. To carry on training programmes for the mental health workers of these facilities (Phase 3). We report here the results of Phase 1. Methods - All NHRFs were surveyed using a structured interview administered to the manager of the facility. In some cases, this information was supplemented with data gathered from other mental health workers at the NHRFs. Results - On May 31, 2000, there were in Italy 1,370 NHRFs with 17,138 beds, giving an average number of beds per facility of 12.5 and a rate of 2.98 beds per 10,000 inhabitants. This rate varies greatly between regions, with a ratio of 1:10 between the two regions with the lowest and the highest bed rates. Seventy-three percent of the NHRFs have a 24-hour staff coverage; more than 50% are directly managed by the NHS Departments of Mental Health and more than three-quarters of the NHRFs are directly funded by the NHS. In the course of 1999 38% of the NHRFs discharged no patients, and another 32% discharged fewer than 3 patients. In about half of the NHRFs the most common patient age group was 40-59 years. In the Italian NHRFs there are 11,240 full-time mental health workers, plus several thousand half-time staff. The average number of full-time mental health workers in each NHRF is 8.2. In 58% of the NHRFs the operational chief is a psychiatrist; some 40% of the overall number of mental health workers in the NHRFs have no specific psychiatric training. The total number of patients resident in the NHRFs is 15,943; among them, 58% have never been admitted to a mental hospital, 40% have been admitted and a small percentage (1.6%) has been previously admitted to a forensic mental hospital. The availability of NHRF beds is negatively associated with the availability of non-hospital facilities (e.g., community mental health centres, day-centres) and positively associated with the number of beds in private psychiatric facilities in each region. Discussion - The current rate of NHRF beds is higher than the officially recommended national standard (2/10,000 inhabitants). However, there is a great variability between regions, which is related to the overall provision of different types of psychiatric facilities. Most NHRFs provide intensive care, and the continuum of residential facilities with different types of care, support, degree of autonomy, etc. recommended by several authors for the long-term treatment of severe patients with different disabilities, seem to be lacking. NHRFs have a very low patient turnover rate, and this may create problems in the future. Conclusions - The PROGRES project is the first national study ever carried out in Italy to evaluate a specific type of psychiatric facilities in the context of the new system of psychiatric care. When all the data will be available, it will be possible to assess in detail for the first time a national representative sample of severe, long-stay patients and the care they are receiving; on this basis, it will also be possible to recommend evidence-based policies aimed at improving the care of the severely mentally ill

The process of care in residential facilities. A national survey in Italy

Background: Although residential facilities (RFs) have largely replaced mental hospitals (MHs) in most developed countries for the long-term residential care of severely impaired patients, the process of care in RFs has not been well studied. The aim of this paper is to investigate the process of care in 265 RFs, representing 19.3% of all RFs in Italy, and to devise a classification of RFs based on process characteristics. Methods: Structured interviews were conducted with the manager and staff of each RF. Residents were evaluated using standardized rating instruments. Results: Most RFs had specific admission criteria, with one third having a waiting list that averaged about 3 months. There was no formal limitation to the length of stay in three quarters of RFs, and turnover rates were very low. Although a homelike atmosphere was found in many RFs, most facilities had restrictive rules on patients' daily lives and behaviours. RFs carried out several external activities targeted at integrating patients within the local community. Standardized assessment instruments and written treatment plans were rarely used. A cluster analysis based on the levels of restrictiveness and the standardization of the process of care classified RFs into five groups that differed with respect to daily staff coverage, size, geographical distribution and proportion of former MH residents. No significant intercluster differences were associated with the current clinical and psychosocial characteristics of residents, or with several other outcome variables. Conclusions: This study provides naturalistic evidence of the heterogeneity of the process of residential care on a large scale. Future efforts should focus on developing an empirical classification of RFs, as well as on national and international standards of care and staffing to address patients' needs

Correction to: Tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The single-arm TOCIVID-19 prospective trial (Journal of Translational Medicine, (2020), 18, 1, (405), 10.1186/s12967-020-02573-9)

Following publication of the original article [1] the authors identified that the collaborators of the TOCIVID-19 investigators, Italy were only available in the supplementary file. The original article has been updated so that the collaborators are correctly acknowledged. For clarity, all collaborators are listed in this correction article