The impact of critical care outreach: is there one?

An evaluation of critical care outreach services was published in the previous issue of Critical Care that fails to demonstrate any important outcome benefit associated with these services. It is now time to ask some difficult questions about the future of outreach, including whether the lack of evidence should lead to disinvest-ment in such services

Team working in intensive care:current evidence and future endeavors

Purpose of review: It has recently been argued that the future of intensive care medicine will rely on high quality management and teamwork. Therefore, this review takes an organizational psychology perspective to examine the most recent research on the relationship between teamwork, care processes, and patient outcomes in intensive care. Recent findings: Interdisciplinary communication within a team is crucial for the development of negotiated shared treatment goals and short-team patient outcomes. Interventions for maximizing team communication have received substantial interest in recent literature. Intensive care coordination is not a linear process, and intensive care teams often fail to discuss how to implement goals, trigger and align activities, or reflect on their performance. Despite a move toward interdisciplinary team working, clinical decision-making is still problematic and continues to be perceived as a top-down and authoritative process. The topic of team leadership in intensive care is underexplored and requires further research. Summary: Based on findings from the most recent research evidence in medicine and management, four principles are identified for improving the effectiveness of team working in intensive care: engender professional efficacy, create stable teams and leaders, develop trust and participative safety, and enable frequent team reflexivity

Is Drotrecogin alfa (activated) for adults with severe sepsis, cost-effective in routine clinical practice?

INTRODUCTION: Previous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) reported that Drotrecogin alfa (DrotAA) is cost-effective based on a Phase III clinical trial (PROWESS). There is little evidence on whether DrotAA is cost-effective in routine clinical practice. We assessed whether DrotAA is cost-effective in routine practice for adult patients with severe sepsis and multiple organ systems failing. METHODS: This CEA used data from a prospective cohort study that compared DrotAA versus no DrotAA (control) for severe sepsis patients with multiple organ systems failing admitted to critical care units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The cohort study used case-mix and mortality data from a national audit, linked with a separate audit of DrotAA infusions. Re-admissions to critical care and corresponding mortality were recorded for four years. Patients receiving DrotAA (n = 1,076) were matched to controls (n = 1,650) with a propensity score (Pscore), and Genetic Matching (GenMatch). The CEA projected long-term survival to report lifetime incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) overall, and for subgroups with two or three to five organ systems failing at baseline. RESULTS: The incremental costs per QALY for DrotAA were £30,000 overall, and £16,000 for the subgroups with three to five organ systems failing. For patients with two organ systems failing, DrotAA resulted in an average loss of one QALY at an incremental cost of £15,000. When the subgroup with two organ systems was restricted to patients receiving DrotAA within 24 hours, DrotAA led to a gain of 1.2 QALYs at a cost per QALY of £11,000. The results were robust to other assumptions including the approach taken to projecting long-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: DrotAA is cost-effective in routine practice for severe sepsis patients with three to five organ systems failing. For patients with two organ systems failing, this study could not provide unequivocal evidence on the cost-effectiveness of DrotAA

Preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and outcome from coronary artery bypass grafting

Background: An elevated preoperative white blood cell count has been associated with a worse outcome after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Leukocyte subtypes, and particularly the neutrophil-lymphocyte (N/L) ratio, may however, convey superior prognostic information. We hypothesized that the N/L ratio would predict the outcome of patients undergoing surgical revascularization. Methods: Baseline clinical details were obtained prospectively in 1938 patients undergoing CABG. The differential leukocyte was measured before surgery, and patients were followed-up 3.6 years later. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Results: The preoperative N/L ratio was a powerful univariable predictor of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13 per unit, P 3.36). Conclusion: An elevated N/L ratio is associated with a poorer survival after CABG. This prognostic utility is independent of other recognized risk factors.Peer reviewedAuthor versio

Mortality and quality of life in the five years after severe sepsis

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Clinical stakeholders' opinions on the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill patients in intensive care units : an international Delphi study

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Clinical components and associated behavioural aspects of a complex healthcare intervention : Multi-methods study of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critical care

Copyright © 2013 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Peer reviewedPostprin

Burnout in the ICU : potential consequences for staff and patient well-being

Peer reviewedAuthor versio

Uric acid levels and outcome from coronary artery bypass grafting

ObjectiveElevated uric acid levels have been associated with an adverse cardiovascular outcome in several settings. Their utility in patients undergoing surgical revascularization has not, however, been assessed. We hypothesized that serum uric acid levels would predict the outcome of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.MethodsThe study cohort consisted of 1140 consecutive patients undergoing nonemergency coronary artery bypass grafting. Clinical details were obtained prospectively, and serum uric acid was measured a median of 1 day before surgery. The primary end point was all-cause mortality.ResultsDuring a median of 4.5 years, 126 patients (11%) died. Mean (± standard deviation) uric acid levels were 390 ± 131 μmol/L in patients who died versus 353 ± 86 μmol/L among survivors (hazard ratio 1.48 per 100 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–1.74; P < .001). The excess risk associated with an elevated uric acid was particularly evident among patients in the upper quartile (≥410 μmol/L; hazard ratio vs all other quartiles combined 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.53–3.11; P < .001). After adjusting for other potential prognostic variables, including the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation, uric acid remained predictive of outcome.ConclusionIncreasing levels of uric acid are associated with poorer survival after coronary artery bypass grafting. Their prognostic utility is independent of other recognized risk factors, including the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation

The ethics of future trials: qualitative analysis of physicians' decision making

Background: The decision to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in a field raises ethical as well as scientific issues. From the clinical equipoise literature, future trials are justifiable if there is ”honest, professional disagreement in the community of expert practitioners as to the preferred treatment”. Empirical data are sparse about how clinicians apply the principles of equipoise to the justification of future RCTs. For example, selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is not widely used in critical care practice despite the strength of the evidence base and therefore provides a unique opportunity to learn how clinicians think about the ethics of further RCTs in critical care. Methods: In an international interview study of views of healthcare professionals about SDD, we undertook a secondary analysis of qualitative data collected using a Theoretical Domains Framework of clinical behaviour. We adopted a general descriptive approach to explore how physicians determined whether another RCT of SDD is ethical. Following a constant comparison approach, three investigators reviewed 54 purposively chosen transcripts from three international regions. We interpreted the data using thematic analysis. Results: We grouped participants’ responses into four inter-related themes: 1) cultural norms about evidence and practice within healthcare; 2) personal views about what evidence is current or applicable; 3) the interpersonal and relational nature of professional decision making locally; and 4) an a priori commitment to future trials. The analysis also identified several unresolved tensions regarding when a future RCT should be pursued. These tensions focused on a clash between potential benefits to current individual patients and potential future harms to patients more broadly. Conclusions: Our study suggests that ethical decision making about future RCTs in the field of SDD does not rely strongly on appeals to evidence, even when the quality of the evidence is reasonably high. Rather, “extra-evidential” reasons, including social, professional, and relational factors, seem to influence opinions regarding the ethics of future trials. Further work is required to see if these conclusions are applicable to other clinical topics and settings