Characteristics of intensive care units in Michigan: Not an open and closed case

OBJECTIVE: Delivery of critical care by intensivists has been recommended by several groups. Our objective was to understand the delivery of critical care physician services in Michigan and the role of intensivists and nonintensivist providers in providing care. DESIGN: Descriptive questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Intensive care unit (ICU) directors and nurse managers at 96 sites, representing 115 ICUs from 72 hospitals in Michigan. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The primary outcome measure was the percentage of sites utilizing a closed vs. an open model of ICU care. Secondary outcome measures included the percentage of ICUs utilizing a high-intensity service model, hospital size, ICU size, type of clinician providing care, and clinical activities performed. Twenty-four (25%) sites used a closed model of intensive care, while 72 (75%) had an open model of care. Hospitals with closed ICUs were larger and had larger ICUs than sites with open ICUs ( P < 0.05). Hospitalists serving as attending physicians were strongly associated with an open ICU (odds ratio [OR] = 12.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5-60.2), as was the absence of intensivists in the group (OR = 12.2; 95%CI = 1.4-105.8), while ICU and hospital size were not associated. At 18 sites (20%) all attendings were board certified in Critical Care. Sixty sites had less than 50% board-certified attending physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The closed intensivist-led model of intensive care delivery is not in widespread use in Michigan. In the absence of intensivists, alternate models of care, including the hospitalist model, are frequently used. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2010;5:4–9. © 2010 Society of Hospital Medicine.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64903/1/567_ftp.pd

Research Staff COVID-19 Pandemic Survey-Results from the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network

Objectives: There is a lack of knowledge about the challenges of researchers who continued in-person research during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Electronic survey assessing work-related exposure to COVID-19, logistical challenges, and procedural changes during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research. Setting: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Clinical Trial Network Centers. Subjects: Research staff at research Network Sites. Measurements and Main Results: The 37-question survey was completed by 277 individuals from 24 states between 29 September 2020, and 12 December 2020, yielding a response rate of 37.7%. Most respondents (91.5%) indicated that non-COVID-19 research was affected by COVID-19 research studies. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, 20% of respondents were reassigned to different roles at their institution. Many survey takers were exposed to COVID-19 (56%), with more than 50% of researchers requiring a COVID-19 test and 8% testing positive. The fear of infection was 2.7-times higher compared to pre-COVID-19 times. Shortages of personal protective equipment were encountered by 34% of respondents, primarily due to lack of access to N95 masks, followed by gowns and protective eyewear. Personal protective equipment reallocation from research to clinical use was reported by 31% of respondents. Most of the respondents (88.5%), despite these logistical challenges, indicated their willingness to enroll COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, members of the research network were engaged in COVID-19 research despite logistical challenges, limited access to personal protective equipment, and fear of exposure. The research network’s survey experience can inform ongoing policy discussions to create research enterprises that can dexterously refocus research to address the knowledge gaps associated with novel public health emergencies while mitigating the effect of pandemics on existing research projects and research personnel

Early High-Dose Vitamin D3 for Critically Ill, Vitamin D-Deficient Patients

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is a common, potentially reversible contributor to morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. The potential benefits of vitamin D supplementation in acute critical illness require further study. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of early vitamin D3 supplementation in critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients who were at high risk for death. Randomization occurred within 12 hours after the decision to admit the patient to an intensive care unit. Eligible patients received a single enteral dose of 540,000 IU of vitamin D3 or matched placebo. The primary end point was 90-day all-cause, all-location mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1360 patients were found to be vitamin D-deficient during point-of-care screening and underwent randomization. Of these patients, 1078 had baseline vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D level,[50 nmol per liter]) confirmed by subsequent testing and were included in the primary analysis population. The mean day 3 level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 46.9±23.2 ng per milliliter (117±58 nmol per liter) in the vitamin D group and 11.4±5.6 ng per milliliter (28±14 nmol per liter) in the placebo group (difference, 35.5 ng per milliliter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31.5 to 39.6). The 90-day mortality was 23.5% in the vitamin D group (125 of 531 patients) and 20.6% in the placebo group (109 of 528 patients) (difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.1 to 7.9; P = 0.26). There were no clinically important differences between the groups with respect to secondary clinical, physiological, or safety end points. The severity of vitamin D deficiency at baseline did not affect the association between the treatment assignment and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D3 did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other, nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of early vitamin D3 supplementation in critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients who were at high risk for death. Randomization occurred within 12 hours after the decision to admit the patient to an intensive care unit. Eligible patients received a single enteral dose of 540,000 IU of vitamin D3 or matched placebo. The primary end point was 90-day all-cause, all-location mortality

Evidence-Based Critical Care

This textbook approaches the study of critical care with teaching in mind. In medicine “teachable moments” usually occur in clinical context, where the engagement in a real case exemplifies principles of diagnosis or therapy. In order to replicate the teaching method, selected cases are presented within each chapter offering the reader an opportunity to process and reflect on the components of the topic within a practical scenario. While medical practice attempts to be evidence-based, common approaches to diagnosis and management incorporate not only evidence but heuristics and biases which await either validation or repudiation. Hence, each chapter is divided into two segments: the “Principles of Management” section – the common approach to the care of patients having a given condition is presented – and the “Evidence Contour” section, in which each author discusses the aspects of diagnosis and management that are the subject of ongoing debate. Evidence-Based Critical Care: A Case Study Approach bridges the gulf between the traditional encyclopedic textbook and the single-hit online repository. This approach will help critical care practitioners, fellows, residents, allied health professionals and students expand their critical care knowledge in an efficient and effective manner, while being especially important for those preparing for board examinations

Catheter-Related vs. Catheter-Associated Blood Stream Infections in the Intensive Care Unit: Incidence, Microbiology, and Implications

Abstract Background: Catheter-associated blood stream infections (CA-BSI) and catheter-related blood stream infections (CR-BSIs) differ in the degree of proof required to show that the catheter is the cause of the infection. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN; formerly the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance [NNIS] group) collects data regarding CA-BSI nationally. We hypothesized that there would be a significant difference in the rates reported according to the definition. Methods: Prospective surveillance of CA-BSI (defined as bacteremia with no extravascular source identified) is performed in all intensive care units (ICUs) at our institution and reported as the rate per 1,000 catheter-days. In January 2006, we initiated cultures of all catheter tips to evaluate for CR-BSI (defined as a catheter tip culture with >15 colony-forming units of the same microorganism(s) found in the blood culture) in the surgical, trauma-burn, and medical ICUs. Results: The CA-BSI rate across all ICUs for the 24-mo study period was 1.4/1,000 catheter-days. The CR-BSI rate was 0.4/1,000 catheter days, for a rate difference of 1.0 infections/1,000 catheter-days (p?<?0.001 vs. CA-BSI). The pathogens identified in CA-BSI included many organisms that are not associated with catheter-related BSIs. Conclusions: The CR-BSI rate is significantly lower than the CA-BSI rate. The organisms identified in CA-BSI surveillance often are not common in catheter-related infections. Reporting CR-BSI thus is a more accurate measure of complications of central venous catheter use, and this rate may be more sensitive to catheter-specific interventions designed to reduce rates of BSI in the ICU.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/85096/1/sur_2009_084.pd

Electric impedance tomography-guided PEEP titration reduces mechanical power in ARDS: a randomized crossover pilot trial

Abstract Background In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing mechanical ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can lead to recruitment or overdistension. Current strategies utilized for PEEP titration do not permit the distinction. Electric impedance tomography (EIT) detects and quantifies the presence of both collapse and overdistension. We investigated whether using EIT-guided PEEP titration leads to decreased mechanical power compared to high-PEEP/FiO2 tables. Methods A single-center, randomized crossover pilot trial comparing EIT-guided PEEP selection versus PEEP selection using the High-PEEP/FiO2 table in patients with moderate–severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. The primary outcome was the change in mechanical power after each PEEP selection strategy. Secondary outcomes included changes in the 4 × driving pressure + respiratory rate (4 ΔP, + RR index) index, driving pressure, plateau pressure, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and static compliance. Results EIT was consistently associated with a decrease in mechanical power compared to PEEP/FiO2 tables (mean difference − 4.36 J/min, 95% CI − 6.7, − 1.95, p = 0.002) and led to lower values in the 4ΔP + RR index (− 11.42 J/min, 95% CI − 19.01, − 3.82, p = 0.007) mainly driven by a decrease in the elastic–dynamic power (− 1.61 J/min, − 2.99, − 0.22, p = 0.027). The elastic–static and resistive powers were unchanged. Similarly, EIT led to a statistically significant change in set PEEP (− 2 cmH2O, p = 0.046), driving pressure, (− 2.92 cmH2O, p = 0.003), peak pressure (− 6.25 cmH2O, p = 0.003), plateau pressure (− 4.53 cmH2O, p = 0.006), and static respiratory system compliance (+ 7.93 ml/cmH2O, p = 0.008). Conclusions In patients with moderate–severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, EIT-guided PEEP titration reduces mechanical power mainly through a reduction in elastic–dynamic power. Trial registration This trial was prospectively registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 03793842) on January 4th, 2019

Will performance measurement lead to better patient outcomes? What are the roles of the National Quality Forum and Medical Specialty Societies?

Performance measures (PMs) are specified metrics by which a health-care provider\u27s care can be compared with national benchmarks. The use of PMs is a key component of efforts to improve the quality and value of health care. The National Quality Forum (NQF) is the federally recognized endorser of PMs. From 2006 to 2009, the Quality Improvement Committee (QIC) of the American College of Chest Physicians engaged in the review of proposed PMs as a member of the NQF. This article provides a review of the QIC\u27s experience with PMs and NQF membership and the lessons learned, an overview of the enhancements made to the NQF endorsement process in 2010 and 2011, and a discussion of the next steps that would further strengthen the measure development and endorsement processes and increase the likelihood of measurement leading to better patient outcomes

A combined paging alert and web-based instrument alters clinician behavior and shortens hospital length of stay in acute pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVES: There are many published clinical guidelines for acute pancreatitis (AP). Implementation of these recommendations is variable. We hypothesized that a clinical decision support (CDS) tool would change clinician behavior and shorten hospital length of stay (LOS). DESIGN/SETTING: Observational study, entitled, The AP Early Response (TAPER) Project. Tertiary center emergency department (ED) and hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Two consecutive samplings of patients having ICD-9 code (577.0) for AP were generated from the emergency department (ED) or hospital admissions. Diagnosis of AP was based on conventional Atlanta criteria. The Pre-TAPER-CDS-Tool group (5/30/06-6/22/07) had 110 patients presenting to the ED with AP per 976 ICD-9 (577.0) codes and the Post-TAPER-CDS-Tool group (5/30/06-6/22/07) had 113 per 907 ICD-9 codes (7/14/10-5/5/11). INTERVENTION: The TAPER-CDS-Tool, developed 12/2008-7/14/2010, is a combined early, automated paging-alert system, which text pages ED clinicians about a patient with AP and an intuitive web-based point-of-care instrument, consisting of seven early management recommendations. RESULTS: The pre- vs. post-TAPER-CDS-Tool groups had similar baseline characteristics. The post-TAPER-CDS-Tool group met two management goals more frequently than the pre-TAPER-CDS-Tool group: risk stratification (P6L/1st 0-24 h (P=0.0003). Mean (s.d.) hospital LOS was significantly shorter in the post-TAPER-CDS-Tool group (4.6 (3.1) vs. 6.7 (7.0) days, P=0.0126). Multivariate analysis identified four independent variables for hospital LOS: the TAPER-CDS-Tool associated with shorter LOS (P=0.0049) and three variables associated with longer LOS: Japanese severity score (P=0.0361), persistent organ failure (P=0.0088), and local pancreatic complications (\u3c0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The TAPER-CDS-Tool is associated with changed clinician behavior and shortened hospital LOS, which has significant financial implications