Staged Implementation of Awakening and Breathing, Coordination, Delirium Monitoring and Management, and Early Mobilization Bundle Improves Patient Outcomes and Reduces Hospital Costs

Strategies to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, ventilator-associated events, and nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia in acute-care hospitals: 2022 Update

The purpose of this document is to highlight practical recommendations to assist acute care hospitals to prioritize and implement strategies to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ventilator-associated events (VAE), and non-ventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia (NV-HAP) in adults, children, and neonates. This document updates the Strategies to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Acute Care Hospitals published in 2014. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology (SHEA), and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Hospital Association, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise.

Every child, every day, back to play: the PICUstars protocol - implementation of a nurse-led PICU liberation program

BACKGROUND

As admissions to paediatric intensive care units (PICU) rise and mortality rates decline, the focus is shifting from survival to quality of survivorship. There is paucity of internationally accepted guidelines to manage complications like over-sedation, delirium, and immobility in the paediatric setting. These have a strong adverse impact on PICU recovery including healthcare costs and long-term functional disability. The A2F bundle (ABCDEF), or ICU Liberation, was developed to operationalise the multiple evidence-based guidelines addressing ICU-related complications and has been shown to improve clinical outcomes and health-care related costs in adult studies. However, there is little data on the effect of ICU Liberation bundle implementation in PICU.

METHODS

PICU-STARS will be a single centre before-and-after after trial and implementation study. It is designed to evaluate if the multidimensional, nurse-led ICU Liberation model of care can be applied to the PICU and if it is successful in minimising PICU-related problems in a mixed quaternary PICU. In a prospective baseline measurement, the present practises of care in the PICU will be assessed in order to inform the adaptation and implementation of the PICU Liberation bundle. To assess feasibility, implementation outcomes, and intervention effectiveness, the implementation team will use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CIFR) and process assessment (mixed methods). The implementation process will be evaluated over time, with focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, and observations used to provide formative feedback. Over time, the barriers and enablers for successful implementation will be analysed, with recommendations based on "lessons learned." All outcomes will be reported using standard descriptive statistics and analytical techniques, with appropriate allowance for patient differentials in severity and relevant characteristics.

DISCUSSION

The results will inform the fine-tune of the Liberation bundle adaptation and implementation process. The expected primary output is a detailed adaptation and implementation guideline, including clinical resources (and investment) required, to adopt PICU-STARS in other children's hospitals.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STATEMENT

The authors thank the PICU education and Liberation Implementation team, and our patients and families for their inspiration and valuable comments on protocol drafts. Results will be made available to critical care survivors, their caregivers, relevant societies, and other researchers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN, ACTRN382863 . Registered 19/10/2021 - Retrospectively registered.

STUDY STATUS

recruiting.

Delirium prediction in the ICU: designing a screening tool for preventive interventions

Introduction

Delirium occurrence is common and preventive strategies are resource intensive. Screening tools can prioritize patients at risk. Using machine learning, we can capture time and treatment effects that pose a challenge to delirium prediction. We aim to develop a delirium prediction model that can be used as a screening tool.

Methods

From the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) and the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care version III (MIMIC-III) database, patients with one or more Confusion Assessment Method-Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) values and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay greater than 24 h were included in our study. We validated our model using 21 quantitative clinical parameters and assessed performance across a range of observation and prediction windows, using different thresholds and applied interpretation techniques. We evaluate our models based on stratified repeated cross-validation using 3 algorithms, namely Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (BiLSTM). BiLSTM represents an evolution from recurrent neural network-based Long Short-Term Memory, and with a backward input, preserves information from both past and future. Model performance is measured using Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic, Area Under Precision Recall Curve, Recall, Precision (Positive Predictive Value), and Negative Predictive Value metrics.

Results

We evaluated our results on 16 546 patients (47% female) and 6294 patients (44% female) from eICU-CRD and MIMIC-III databases, respectively. Performance was best in BiLSTM models where, precision and recall changed from 37.52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.00%–39.05%) to 17.45 (95% CI, 15.83%–19.08%) and 86.1% (95% CI, 82.49%–89.71%) to 75.58% (95% CI, 68.33%–82.83%), respectively as prediction window increased from 12 to 96 h. After optimizing for higher recall, precision and recall changed from 26.96% (95% CI, 24.99%–28.94%) to 11.34% (95% CI, 10.71%–11.98%) and 93.73% (95% CI, 93.1%–94.37%) to 92.57% (95% CI, 88.19%–96.95%), respectively. Comparable results were obtained in the MIMIC-III cohort.

Conclusions

Our model performed comparably to contemporary models using fewer variables. Using techniques like sliding windows, modification of threshold to augment recall and feature ranking for interpretability, we addressed shortcomings of current models.

Effects of evidence-based ICU care on long-term outcomes of patients with sepsis or septic shock (ILOSS): protocol for a multicentre prospective observational cohort study in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Sepsis is not only the leading cause of death in the intensive care unit (ICU) but also a major risk factor for physical and cognitive impairment and mental disorders, known as postintensive care syndrome (PICS), reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and even mental health disorders in patient families (PICS-family; PICS-F). The ABCDEF bundle is strongly recommended to overcome them, while the association between implementing the bundle and the long-term outcomes is also unknown.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre prospective observational study at 26 ICUs. All consecutive patients between 1 November 2020 and 30 April 2022, who are 18 years old or older and expected to stay in an ICU for more than 48 hours due to sepsis or septic shock, are enrolled. Follow-up to evaluate survival and PICS/ PICS-F will be performed at 3, 6 and 12 months and additionally every 6 months up to 5 years after hospital discharge. Primary outcomes include survival at 12 months, which is the primary outcome, and the incidence of PICS defined as the presence of any physical impairment, cognitive impairment or mental disorders. PICS assessment scores, HRQoL and employment status are evaluated. The association between the implementation rate for the ABCDEF bundle and for each of the individual elements and long-term outcomes will be evaluated. The PICS-F, defined as the presence of mental disorders, and HRQoL of the family is also assessed. Additional analyses with data up to 5 years follow-up are planned.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethics approvals from Saiseikai Utsunomiya Hospital (2020-42) and all other participating institutions and was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. Informed consent will be obtained from all patients. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000041433.

Recent Trends in Admission Diagnosis and Related Mortality in the Medically Critically Ill

PURPOSE

With decades of declining ICU mortality, we hypothesized that the outcomes and distribution of diseases cared for in the ICU have changed and we aimed to further characterize them.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of 287,154 nonsurgical-critically ill adults, from 237 U.S. ICUs, using the manually abstracted Cerner APACHE Outcomes database from 2008 to 2016 was performed. Surgical patients, rare admission diagnoses (<100 occurrences), and low volume hospitals (<100 total admissions) were excluded. Diagnoses were distributed into mutually exclusive organ system/disease-based categories based on admission diagnosis. Multi-level mixed-effects negative binomial regression was used to assess temporal trends in admission, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

The number of ICU admissions remained unchanged (IRR 0.99, 0.98-1.003) while certain organ system/disease groups increased (toxicology [25%], hematologic/oncologic [55%] while others decreased (gastrointestinal [31%], pulmonary [24%]). Overall risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was unchanged (IRR 0.98, 0.96-1.0004). Risk-adjusted ICU LOS (Estimate -0.06 days/year, -0.07 to -0.04) decreased. Risk-adjusted mortality varied significantly by disease.

CONCLUSION

Risk-adjusted ICU mortality rate did not change over the study period, but there was evidence of shifting disease burden across the critical care population. Our data provides useful information regarding future ICU personnel and resource needs.

Implementation of the ABCDEF Bundle for Critically Ill ICU Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multi-National 1-Day Point Prevalence Study

Background: Data regarding delivery of evidence-based care to critically ill patients in Intensive Care Units (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial but lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation rate of the ABCDEF bundle, which is a collection of six evidence-based ICU care initiatives which are strongly recommended to be incorporated into clinical practice, and ICU diaries for patients with and without COVID-19 infections in ICUs, and to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on implementation of each element of the bundle and independent associated factors.

Methods: A world-wide 1-day point prevalence study investigated the delivery of the ABCDEF bundle and ICU diary to patients without or with COVID-19 infections on 27 January 2021 via an online questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with adjustment for patient demographics evaluated the impact of COVID-19 and identified factors in ICU administrative structures and policies independently associated with delivery.

Results: From 54 countries and 135 ICUs, 1,229 patients were eligible, and 607 (49%) had COVID-19 infections. Implementation rates were: entire bundle (without COVID-19: 0% and with COVID-19: 1%), Element A (regular pain assessment: 64 and 55%), Element B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials: 17 and 10%), Element C (regular sedation assessment: 45 and 61%), Element D (regular delirium assessment: 39 and 35%), Element E (exercise: 22 and 25%), Element F (family engagement/empowerment: 16 and 30%), and ICU diary (17 and 21%). The presence of COVID-19 was not associated with failure to implement individual elements. Independently associated factors for each element in common between the two groups included presence of a specific written protocol, application of a target/goal, and tele-ICU management. A lower income status country and a 3:1 nurse-patient ratio were significantly associated with non-implementation of elements A, C, and D, while a lower income status country was also associated with implementation of element F.

Conclusions: Regardless of COVID-19 infection status, implementation rates for the ABCDEF bundle, for each element individually and an ICU diary were extremely low for patients without and with COVID-19 infections during the pandemic. Strategies to facilitate implementation of and adherence to the complete ABCDEF bundle should be optimized and addressed based on unit-specific barriers and facilitators.

Physical Restraint Use in Intensive Care Units: Exploring the Decision-Making Process and New Proposals. A Multimethod Study

Aim: The general aim of this study was to explore the decision-making process followed by Intensive Care Unit (ICU) health professionals with respect to physical restraint (PR) administration and management, along with the factors that influence it. Method: A qual-quant multimethod design was sequenced in two stages: an initial stage following a qualitative methodology; and second, quantitative with a predominant descriptive approach. The multicenter study was undertaken at 17 ICUs belonging to 11 public hospitals in the Madrid region (Spain) across the period 2015 through 2019. The qualitative stage was performed from an interpretative phenomenological perspective. A total of eight discussion groups (DG) were held, with the participation of 23 nurses, 12 patient care nursing assistants, and seven physicians. Intentional purposive sampling was carried out. DG were tape-recorded and transcribed. A thematic analysis of the latent content was performed. In the quantitative stage, we maintained a 96-h observation period at each ICU. Variables pertaining to general descriptive elements of each ICU, institutional pain-agitation/sedation-delirium (PAD) monitoring policies and elements linked to quality of PR use were recorded. A descriptive analysis was performed, and the relationship between the variables was analyzed. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Findings: A total of 1070 patients were observed, amounting to a median prevalence of PR use of 19.11% (min: 0%–max: 44.44%). The differences observed between ICUs could be explained by a difference in restraint conceptualization. The various actors involved jointly build up a health care culture and a conceptualization of the terms “safety-risk”, which determine decision-making about the use of restraints at each ICU. These shared meanings are the germ of beliefs, values, and rituals which, in this case, determine the greater or lesser use of restraints. There were different profiles of PR use among the units studied: preventive restraints versus “Zero” restraints. The differences corresponded to aspects such as: systematic use of tools for assessment of PAD; interpretation of patient behavior; the decision-making process, the significance attributed to patient safety and restraints; and the feelings generated by PR use. The restraint–free model requires an approach to safety from a holistic perspective, with the involvement of all team members and the family.

Implementation and Routinization of the ABCDE Bundle: A Mixed Methods Evaluation

BACKGROUND

The ABCDE (Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring and management, and Early exercise/mobility) bundle has been associated with reductions in delirium incidence and improved patient outcomes but has not been widely adopted.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine how to facilitate ABCDE bundle adoption by examining the impact of different implementation strategies on bundle adherence rates and assessing clinicians' perceptions of the bundle and implementation efforts.

METHODS

This study examined the effect of 2 bundle implementation strategies on patient care in 8 adult intensive care units. The basic strategy included electronic health record (EHR) modification, whereas the enhanced strategy included EHR modification plus additional bundle training, clinical champions, and staff engagement. A total of 84 nurses, physicians, and therapists participated in interviews and a survey to assess bundle implementation.

RESULTS

Respondents indicated bundle use resulted in "best care" through care standardization and coordination and improved patient outcomes. Intensive care units in both intervention groups had significant improvements in bundle adherence after implementation efforts, but intensive care units in the basic intervention group outperformed other sites after initiating their own implementation strategies. Successful implementation tactics included incorporating the bundle into multidisciplinary rounds and providing ongoing support, training, and routine auditing and feedback.

DISCUSSION

The ABCDE bundle can improve quality of care and outcomes, and implementation can be accelerated through EHR tools, trainings, and performance feedback.

Delirium in critical illness: clinical manifestations, outcomes, and management

Delirium is the most common manifestation of brain dysfunction in critically ill patients. In the intensive care unit (ICU), duration of delirium is independently predictive of excess death, length of stay, cost of care, and acquired dementia. There are numerous neurotransmitter/functional and/or injury-causing hypotheses rather than a unifying mechanism for delirium. Without using a validated delirium instrument, delirium can be misdiagnosed (under, but also overdiagnosed and trivialized), supporting the recommendation to use a monitoring instrument routinely. The best-validated ICU bedside instruments are CAM-ICU and ICDSC, both of which also detect subsyndromal delirium. Both tools have some inherent limitations in the neurologically injured patients, yet still provide valuable information about delirium once the sequelae of the primary injury settle into a new post-injury baseline. Now it is known that antipsychotics and other psychoactive medications do not reliably improve brain function in critically ill delirious patients. ICU teams should systematically screen for predisposing and precipitating factors. These include exacerbations of cardiac/respiratory failure or sepsis, metabolic disturbances (hypoglycemia, dysnatremia, uremia and ammonemia) receipt of psychoactive medications, and sensory deprivation through prolonged immobilization, uncorrected vision and hearing deficits, poor sleep hygiene, and isolation from loved ones so common during COVID-19 pandemic. The ABCDEF (A2F) bundle is a means to facilitate implementation of the 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU (PADIS) Guidelines. In over 25,000 patients across nearly 100 institutions, the A2F bundle has been shown in a dose-response fashion (i.e., greater bundle compliance) to yield improved survival, length of stay, coma and delirium duration, cost, and less ICU bounce-backs and discharge to nursing homes.

Post-Intensive Care Syndrome and Its New Challenges in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: A Review of Recent Advances and Perspectives

Intensive care unit survivors experience prolonged physical impairments, cognitive impairments, and mental health problems, commonly referred to as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). Previous studies reported the prevalence, assessment, and prevention of PICS, including the ABCDEF bundle approach. Although the management of PICS has been advanced, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) posed an additional challenge to PICS. The prevalence of PICS after COVID-19 extensively varied with 28-87% of cases pertaining to physical impairments, 20-57% pertaining to cognitive impairments, and 6-60% pertaining to mental health problems after 1-6 months after discharge. Each component of the ABCDEF bundle is not sufficiently provided from 16% to 52% owing to the highly transmissible nature of the virus. However, new data are emerging about analgesia, sedation, delirium care, nursing care, early mobilization, nutrition, and family support. In this review, we summarize the recent data on PICS and its new challenge in PICS after COVID-19 infection.

The pharmacist's role in implementation of the ABCDEF bundle into clinical practice

PURPOSE

To summarize published data regarding implementation of the ABCDEF bundle, a multicomponent process for avoidance of oversedation and prolonged ventilation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients; discuss pertinent literature to support each bundle element; and discuss the role of the pharmacist in coordinating bundle elements and implementation of the ABCDEF bundle into clinical practice.

SUMMARY

Neuromuscular weakness and ICU-acquired weakness are common among critically ill patients and associated with significant cost and societal burdens. Recent literature supporting early liberation from mechanical ventilation and early mobilization has demonstrated improved short- and long-term outcomes. With expanded use of pharmacy services in the ICU setting, pharmacists are well positioned to advocate for best care practices in ICUs. A dedicated, interprofessional team is necessary for the implementation of the ABCDEF bundle in inpatient clinical practice settings. As evidenced by a number of studies, successful implementation of the ABCDEF bundle derives from involvement by motivated and highly trained individuals, timely completion of individual patient care tasks, and effective leadership to ensure proper implementation and ongoing support. Factors commonly identified by clinicians as barriers to bundle implementation in clinical practice include patient instability and safety concerns, lack of knowledge, staff concerns, unclear protocol criteria, and lack of interprofessional team care coordination. This narrative review discusses research on bundle elements and recommendations for application by pharmacists in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the benefits associated with implementation of the ABCDEF bundle, evidence suggests that the recommended interventions may not be routinely used within the ICU. The pharmacist provides the expertise and knowledge for adoption of the bundle into everyday clinical practice.

Physical Restraints and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Survivors of Critical Illness. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Rationale: Physical restraints are used liberally in some intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent patient harm from device removal or falls. Although the intention of restraint use is patient safety, their application may inadvertently cause physical or psychological harm. Physical restraints may contribute to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but there is a paucity of supportive data.Objectives: To investigate the association between physical restraint use and PTSD symptoms in ICU survivors. Secondary objectives were to examine the cognitive and physical outcomes associated with physical restraint use and to assess interventions that may be effective in reducing restraint use.Methods: A systematic review of English language studies in PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL between January 1, 1990, to February 8, 2020 was performed. Observational or randomized studies that reported on restraint use and associated outcomes, or interventions to reduce restraint use, in critically ill adult patients were identified. Two independent reviewers completed the review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines.Results: We identified 794 articles, of which 37 met inclusion criteria and were included. Thirty of these studies related to patient outcomes including PTSD, delirium, mechanical ventilation hours, and physical injury. Seven related to interventions to reduce physical restraint use. The quality of studies was not high; only four of the included studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias. Three studies found a significant relationship between restraint use and PTSD, but their results could not be pooled for analysis. Pooled data indicated a significant association between physical restraint use and delirium (odds ratio [OR], 11.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.66-20.01; P < 0.001) and duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference in days, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.95-4.75; P < 0.001). We also found that interventions, such as nursing education, may effectively reduce restraint use by approximately 50% (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.32-0.73; P < 0.001). The impact that a reduction in restraint use may have on associated outcomes was not examined.Conclusions: Physical restraint use may be associated with PTSD in ICU survivors and is associated with delirium and longer duration of mechanical ventilation. Nurse education is likely effective in reducing rates of physical restraint among ICU patients.

Impact of ABCDE Bundle Implementation in the Intensive Care Unit on Specific Patient Costs

OBJECTIVES

To measure the impact of full versus partial ABCDE bundle implementation on specific cost centers and related resource utilization.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Two medical ICUs within Montefiore Health System (Bronx, NY).

PATIENTS

Four hundred and seventy-two mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the medical ICUs during a hospitalization which began and ended between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013.

INTERVENTIONS

The full (A)wakening, (B)reathing, (C)oordination, (D)elirium Monitoring/Management and (E)arly Mobilization bundle was implemented in the intervention ICU while a portion of the bundle (A, B, and D components) was implemented in the comparison ICU.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Relative to the comparison ICU, implementation of the entire bundle in the intervention ICU was associated with a 27.3% (95% CI: 9.9%, 41.3%; P = 0.004) decrease in total hospital laboratory costs and a 2,888.6% (95% CI: 77.9%, 50,113.2%; P = 0.018) increase in total hospital physical therapy costs. Cost of total hospital medications, diagnostic radiology and respiratory therapy were unchanged. Relative to the comparison ICU, total hospital resource use decreased in the intervention ICU (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], laboratory: 0.68 [0.54, 0.87], P = 0.002; diagnostic radiology: 0.75 [0.59, 0.96], P = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Full ABCDE bundle implementation resulted in a decrease in total hospital laboratory costs and total hospital laboratory and diagnostic resource utilization while leading to an increase in physical therapy costs.

Effectiveness of Bundle Interventions on ICU Delirium: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of bundle interventions on ICU delirium prevalence, duration, and other patients' adverse outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and MEDLINE from January 2000 to July 2020. The protocol of the study was registered in International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020163147).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials or cohort studies that examined the following outcomes were included in the current study: ICU delirium prevalence and duration, proportion of patient-days with coma, ventilator-free days, mechanical ventilation days, ICU or hospital length of stay, and ICU or inhospital or 28-day mortality.

DATA EXTRACTION

Using a standardized data-collection form, two authors screened the studies and extracted the data independently, and assessed the studies' quality using the Modified Jadad Score Scale for randomized clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eleven studies with a total of 26,384 adult participants were included in the meta-analysis. Five studies (three randomized clinical trials and two cohort studies) involving 18,638 patients demonstrated that ICU delirium prevalence was not reduced (risk ratio = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68-1.24). Meta-analysis showed that the use of bundle interventions was not associated with shortening the duration of ICU delirium (mean difference = -1.42 d; 95% CI, -3.06 to 0.22; two randomized clinical trials and one cohort study), increasing ventilator-free days (mean difference = 1.56 d; 95% CI, -1.56 to 4.68; three randomized clinical trials), decreasing mechanical ventilation days (mean difference = -0.83 d; 95% CI, -1.80 to 0.14; four randomized clinical trials and two cohort studies), ICU length of stay (mean difference = -1.08 d; 95% CI, -2.16 to 0.00; seven randomized clinical trials and two cohort studies), and inhospital mortality (risk ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.06; five randomized clinical trials and four cohort studies). However, bundle interventions are effective in reducing the proportion of patient-days experiencing coma (risk ratio = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.57; two cohort studies), hospital length of stay (mean difference = -1.47 d; 95% CI, -2.80 to -0.15; four randomized clinical trials and one cohort study), and 28-day mortality by 18% (risk ratio = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.99; three randomized clinical trials).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis fails to support that bundle interventions are effective in reducing ICU delirium prevalence and duration, but supports that bundle interventions are effective in reducing the proportion of patient-days with coma, hospital length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the impact of bundle interventions on ICU delirium and other clinical outcomes.

Effectiveness of the ABCDEF bundle on delirium, functional outcomes and quality of life in intensive care patients: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Hospital mortality for critically ill patients has decreased significantly throughout the developed world over the past two decades, attributable to improvements in the quality of intensive care, advances in critical care medicine and technologies that provide long-term multiorgan support. However, the long-term outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors is emerging as a real issue. Cognitive and physical impairments suffered by ICU survivors are common including profound weakness, pain and delirium which are inextricably linked. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of the Assess, prevent and manage pain; Both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; Choice of sedation and analgesia; Delirium: assess, prevent and manage; Early mobility and exercise; Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF) bundle in reducing ICU-related short-term and long-term consequences of critical illness through a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will be a single-centre, prospective RCT. A total of 150 participants will be recruited and randomised to either receive the ABCDEF bundle protocol or non-protocolised standard care for the duration of the participant's admission in the ICU. The primary outcome is delirium status measured using the Confusion Assessment Measure for ICU (CAM-ICU). Secondary outcomes include physical function measured by the Functional Independence Measure and quality of life measured by the European Quality of Life five dimensions, five-level questionnaire. A mixed-method process evaluation will contribute to understanding the experience of health teams who implement the ABCDEF bundle into practice.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was provided by the Metro South Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (EC00167) and the Griffith University's HREC prior to study commencement.Study results will be disseminated by presentations at conferences and via publications to peer-review journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620000736943; Pre-results.

Description of physical rehabilitation in intensive care units in Argentina: usual practice and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Online survey

Objective

To describe the usual practice of mobility therapy in the adult intensive care unit for patients with and without COVID-19.

Methods

Online survey in which physical therapists working in an adult intensive care unit in Argentina participated. Sixteen multiple-choice or single-response questions grouped into three sections were asked. The first section addressed personal, professional and work environment data. The second section presented questions regarding usual care, and the third focused on practices under COVID-19 pandemic conditions.

Results

Of 351 physical therapists, 76.1% answer that they were exclusively responsible for patient mobility. The highest motor-based goal varied according to four patient scenarios: Mechanically ventilated patients, patients weaned from mechanical ventilation, patients who had never required mechanical ventilation, and patients with COVID-19 under mechanical ventilation. In the first and last scenarios, the highest goal was to optimize muscle strength, while for the other two, it was to perform activities of daily living. Finally, the greatest limitation in working with patients with COVID-19 was respiratory and/or contact isolation.

Conclusion

Physical therapists in Argentina reported being responsible for the mobility of patients in the intensive care unit. The highest motor-based therapeutic goals for four classic scenarios in the closed area were limited by the need for mechanical ventilation. The greatest limitation when mobilizing patients with COVID-19 was respiratory and contact isolation.

The ABCDE bundle implementation in an intensive care unit: Facilitators and barriers perceived by nurses and doctors

AIM

To describe the facilitators and barriers perceived by healthcare teams after the implementation of the Awakening, Breathing, Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management and Early mobility bundle in an intensive care unit in Italy. This multicomponent intervention strategy has been associated with lower probabilities of delirium, improved functional outcomes and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

A survey study conducted between June 2015 and May 2016 explored variables related to intensive care unit team members: perceptions of delirium; knowledge of the Awakening, Breathing, Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management and Early mobility bundle; teamwork perception and resource availability.

RESULTS

Most of the participants affirmed having reasonable knowledge of delirium, outcomes of delirious episodes, Awakening, Breathing, Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management and Early mobility bundle components and their effectiveness. Low coordination between healthcare professionals was identified as a barrier. Overall, the time elapsing from the beginning of implementation of the bundle determined an increase in levels of awareness and confidence in the application of the bundle protocol and the Confusion Assessment Method Intensive Care Unit scale.

CONCLUSION

Issues with the Awakening, Breathing, Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management and Early mobility bundle relating to coordination, management and interdisciplinary ward rounds are critical and should be remedied and monitored. This study could provide the basis for improving bundle implementation strategies and surveying levels of progression in other intensive care units.

Delirium and long term cognition in critically ill patients

Delirium, a form of acute brain dysfunction, is very common in the critically ill adult patient population. Although its pathophysiology is poorly understood, multiple factors associated with delirium have been identified, many of which are coincident with critical illness. To date, no drug or non-drug treatments have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with delirium. Clinical trials have provided a limited understanding of the contributions of multiple triggers and processes of intensive care unit (ICU) acquired delirium, making identification of therapies difficult. Delirium is independently associated with poor long term outcomes, including persistent cognitive impairment. A longer duration of delirium is associated with worse long term cognition after adjustment for age, education, pre-existing cognitive function, severity of illness, and exposure to sedatives. Interestingly, differences in prevalence are seen between ICU survivor populations, with survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome experiencing higher rates of cognitive impairment at early follow-up compared with mixed ICU survivor populations. Although cognitive performance improves over time for some ICU survivors, impairment is persistent in others. Studies have so far been unable to identify patients at higher risk of long term cognitive impairment; this is an active area of scientific investigation.

National Trends and Variation of Functional Status Deterioration in the Medically Critically Ill

OBJECTIVES

Physical and psychologic deficits after an ICU admission are associated with lower quality of life, higher mortality, and resource utilization. This study aimed to examine the prevalence and secular changes of functional status deterioration during hospitalization among nonsurgical critical illness survivors over the past decade.

DESIGN

We performed a retrospective longitudinal cohort analysis.

SETTING

Analysis performed using the Cerner Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation outcomes database which included manually abstracted data from 236 U.S. hospitals from 2008 to 2016.

PATIENTS

We included nonsurgical adult ICU patients who survived their hospitalization and had a functional status documented at ICU admission and hospital discharge. Physical functional status was categorized as fully independent, partially dependent, or fully dependent.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Functional status deterioration occurred in 38,116 patients (29.3%). During the past decade, functional status deterioration increased in each disease category, as well as overall (prevalence rate ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17; p < 0.001). Magnitude of functional status deterioration also increased over time (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.03-1.03; p < 0.001) with hematological, sepsis, neurologic, and pulmonary disease categories having the highest odds of severe functional status deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

Following nonsurgical critical illness, the prevalence of functional status deterioration and magnitude increased in a nationally representative cohort, despite efforts to reduce ICU dysfunction over the past decade. Identifying the prevalence of functional status deterioration and primary etiologies associated with functional status deterioration will elucidate vital areas for further research and targeted interventions. Reducing ICU debilitation for key disease processes may improve ICU survivor mortality, enhance quality of life, and decrease healthcare utilization.

Implementation of the "awakening and breathing trials, choice of drugs, delirium management, and early exercise/mobility" bundle in the pediatric intensive care unit of tertiary hospitals in southwestern China: a cross-sectional survey

Objective

To investigate management and implementation of the “awakening and breathing trials, choice of drugs, delirium management, and early exercise/mobility” (ABCDE) bundle in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in southwestern China

Methods

A self-designed questionnaire for determining implementation of the ABCDE bundle was distributed to healthcare professionals in the PICU. Multiple linear regression was used to analyze results.

Results

A total of 270 questionnaires were collected. There was no significant difference in the awareness of the ABCDE bundle rate among Sichuan, Guizhou, and Yunnan workers. Only dynamic adjustment of drug dose accounted for more than half (55.5%) of “frequent implementation” and “general implementation”, followed by implementation of sedation assessment, pain assessment, and spontaneous breathing trials (46.4%, 39.3%, and 35.6%, respectively). A total of 80.4% of healthcare professionals never performed screening of delirium. Multivariate analysis showed that the healthcare professionals’ scores of ABCDE bundle behavior significantly differed regarding awareness of the ABCDE bundle, years of work at the hospital, the region of hospitals, and occupational category.

Conclusion

Implementation of the ABCDE bundle in the PICU in southwestern China is not sufficient. Existing problems need to be identified and a standardized sedation and analgesia management model needs to be established.

ABCDEF Bundle and Supportive ICU Practices for Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An International Point Prevalence Study

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

To investigate implementation of evidence-based and supportive cares in ICUs, such as the ABCDEF, nutrition therapy, and ICU diary, for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection in ICUs and their association with ICU clinical practice and setting.

Design:

A worldwide, 2-day point prevalence study.

Setting:

The study was carried out on June 3, 2020, and July 1, 2020. A total of 212 ICUs in 38 countries participated. Clinicians in each participating ICU completed web-based online surveys.

Patients:

The ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Interventions:

None.

Measurements and Main results:

The implementation rate for the elements of the ABCDEF bundle, other supportive ICU care measures, and implementation-associated structures were investigated. Data were collected for 262 patients, of whom 47.3% underwent mechanical ventilation and 4.6% were treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Each element was implemented for the following percentages of patients: elements A (regular pain assessment), 45%; B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials), 28%; C (regular sedation assessment), 52%; D (regular delirium assessment), 35%; E (early mobility and exercise), 47%; and F (family engagement and empowerment), 16%. The implementation of element E was 4% for patients on mechanical ventilation and 8% for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Supportive care, such as protein provision throughout the ICU stay (under 1.2 g/kg for more than 50% of the patients) and introduction of ICU diary (25%), was infrequent. Implementation rates of elements A and D were higher in ICUs with specific protocols and fewer ICU beds exclusively for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Element E was implemented at a higher rate in ICUs that had more ICU beds assigned for them.

Conclusions:

This point prevalence study showed low implementation of the ABCDEF bundle. Specific protocols and the number of ICU beds reserved for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection might be key factors for delivering appropriate supportive care.

A gap existed between physicians' perceptions and performance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management are crucial elements in the care of critically ill patients. In the present study, we aimed to present the current practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the gap between physicians' perception and actual clinical performance.

METHODS

We sent invitations to the 33 members of the Neuro-Critical Care Committee affiliated with the Chinese Association of Critical Care Physicians. Finally, 24 ICUs (14 general-, 5 neuroscience-, 3 surgical-, and 2 emergency-ICUs) from 20 hospitals participated in this one-day point prevalence study combined with an on-site questionnaire survey. We enrolled adult ICU admitted patients with a length of stay ≥24 h, who were divided into the brain-injured group or non-brain-injured group. The hospital records and nursing records during the 24-h period prior to enrollment were reviewed. Actual evaluations of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium were documented. We invited physicians on-duty during the 24 h prior to the patients' enrollment to complete a survey questionnaire, which contained attitude for importance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments.

RESULTS

We enrolled 387 patients including 261 (67.4%) brain-injured and 126 (32.6%) non-brain-injured patients. There were 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.9-23.9%) and 25.6% (95% CI: 21.2-29.9%) patients receiving the pain and agitation-sedation scale assessment, respectively. The rates of these two types of assessments were significantly lower in brain-injured patients than non-brain-injured patients (p = 0.003 and < 0.001). Delirium assessment was only performed in three patients (0.8, 95% CI: 0.1-1.7%). In questionnaires collected from 91 physicians, 70.3% (95% CI: 60.8-79.9%) and 82.4% (95% CI: 74.4-90.4%) reported routine use of pain and agitation-sedation scale assessments, respectively. More than half of the physicians (52.7, 95% CI: 42.3-63.2%) reported daily screening for delirium using an assessment scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The actual prevalence of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessment, especially delirium screening, was suboptimal in Chinese ICUs. There is a gap between physicians' perceptions and actual clinical practice in pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments. Our results will prompt further quality improvement projects to optimize the practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management in China.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03975751 . Retrospectively registered on 2 June 2019.

[Effect of rehabilitation initiation timing in the intensive care unit on outcomes in patients with pneumonia]

Early rehabilitation in the intensive care unit is a promising component of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) treatment and prevention. However, the optimal time to start mobilizing critically ill patients is still to be determined.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of rehabilitation initiation timing on outcomes in patients with pneumonia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 106 patients with pneumonia (27 patients with community-acquired pneumonia and 79 patients with early-onset healthcare associated pneumonia) who received daily rehabilitation treatment for at least 7 days in the intensive care unit. All patients were retrospectively assigned to the early rehabilitation (ER) group if rehabilitation treatment was started within the first 48 hours of admission to the intensive care unit or the delayed rehabilitation (DR) group if mobilization was not initiated within this time frame.

RESULTS

The baseline clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients did not differ between the groups. During rehabilitation, rates of catecholamine use and the psychiatric signs of PICS frequency were also comparable. The duration of mechanical ventilation was 1.5 times shorter in ER group patients than in DR group (8 vs. 6 days and 13 vs. 9 days, respectively; p=0.003). The ICU and hospital stay were also significantly shorter in ER group compared with the DR group (12 (9-16) vs. 19 (13-30), respectively; p<0.001; 23 (12) vs. 31 (13) as inpatients, respectively; p=0.005). Mortality and severe complications rate were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The earliest possible start of rehabilitation provided the patient's condition is stable, can reduce the duration of respiratory support and hospital stay for patients with pneumonia.

Intensive Care Unit Nursing Priorities in the United States

This integrative review presents the most recent and relevant critical care nursing research publications in the United States. A comprehensive search identified publications on the topics of delirium; early mobility; communication; palliative care; tele-intensive care unit; care bundle implementation; and prevention, detection, and early management of infection. The evidence is summarized for each of these topics, as well as other research, with suggestions and guidance for end users.

Delirium Incidence, Duration, and Severity in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019

OBJECTIVES

To determine delirium occurrence rate, duration, and severity in patients admitted to the ICU with coronavirus disease 2019.

DESIGN

Retrospective data extraction study from March 1, 2020, to June 7, 2020. Delirium outcomes were assessed for up to the first 14 days in ICU.

SETTING

Two large, academic centers serving the state of Indiana.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients admitted to the ICU with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 nasopharyngeal swab polymerase chain reaction test from March 1, 2020, to June 7, 2020, were included. Individuals younger than 18 years of age, without any delirium assessments, or without discharge disposition were excluded.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Primary outcomes were delirium rates and duration, and the secondary outcome was delirium severity. Two-hundred sixty-eight consecutive patients were included in the analysis with a mean age of 58.4 years (sd, 15.6 yr), 40.3% were female, 44.4% African American, 20.7% Hispanic, and a median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18 (interquartile range, 13-25). Delirium without coma occurred in 29.1% of patients, delirium prior to coma in 27.9%, and delirium after coma in 23.1%. The first Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU assessment was positive for delirium in 61.9%. Hypoactive delirium was the most common subtype (87.4%). By day 14, the median number of delirium/coma-free were 5 days (interquartile range, 4-11 d), and median Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 score was 6.5 (interquartile range, 5-7) indicating severe delirium. Benzodiazepines were ordered for 78.4% of patients in the cohort. Mechanical ventilation was associated with greater odds of developing delirium (odds ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.1-22.2; p = 0.033) even after adjusting for sedative medications. There were no between-group differences in mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Delirium without coma occurred in 29.1% of patients admitted to the ICU. Delirium persisted for a median of 5 days and was severe. Mechanical ventilation was significantly associated with odds of delirium even after adjustment for sedatives. Clinical attention to manage delirium duration and severity, and deeper understanding of the virus' neurologic effects is needed for patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Organizational Characteristics Associated With ICU Liberation (ABCDEF) Bundle Implementation by Adult ICUs in Michigan

The ICU Liberation (ABCDEF) Bundle can help to improve care and outcomes for ICU patients, but bundle implementation is far from universal. Understanding how ICU organizational characteristics influence bundle implementation could inform quality improvement efforts. We surveyed all hospitals in Michigan with adult ICUs to determine whether organizational characteristics were associated with bundle implementation and to determine the level of agreement between ICU physician and nurse leaders around ICU organizational characteristics and bundle implementation.

DESIGN

We surveyed ICU physician and nurse leaders, assessing their safety culture, ICU team collaboration, and work environment. Using logistic and linear regression models, we compared these organizational characteristics to bundle element implementation, and also compared physician and nurse leaders' perceptions about organizational characteristics and bundle implementation.

SETTING

All (n = 72) acute care hospitals with adult ICUs in Michigan.

SUBJECTS

ICU physician and nurse leader pairs from each hospital's main ICU.

INTERVENTIONS

We developed, pilot-tested, and deployed an electronic survey to all subjects over a 3 month period in 2016.

RESULTS

Results from 73 surveys (28 physicians, 45 nurses, 60% hospital response rate) demonstrated significant variation in hospital and ICU size and type, organizational characteristics, and physician/nurse perceptions of ICU organization and bundle implementation. We found that a robust safety culture and collaborative work environment that uses checklists to facilitate team communication are strongly associated with bundle implementation. There is also a significant dose-response effect between safety culture, a collaborative work environment, and overall bundle implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several specific ICU practices that can facilitate ABCDEF Bundle implementation. Our results can be used to develop effective bundle implementation strategies that leverage safety culture, interprofessional collaboration, and routine checklist use in ICUs to improve bundle implementation and performance.

Mortality Predictors and Associated Factors in Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been associated to an array of risk factors. Identification of risk factors potentially contribute to predict and reduce mortality rates in the ICU. The objectives of the study were to determine the prevalence and the factors associated with the mortality and to analyze the survival.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study conducted in two clinical and surgical ICU in the state of Sergipe, northeastern Brazil. We enrolled 316 patients with at least 48 h of hospitalization, minimum age of 18 years old, sedated or weaned, with RASS ≥ -3, between July 2017 and April 2018. We categorized data in (1) age and gender, (2) clinical condition, and (3) prevalence of delirium. Data from enrolled patients were collected from enrollment until death or ICU discharge. Patients' outcomes were categorized in (1) death and (2) nondeath (discharge).

RESULTS

Twenty-one percent of participants died. Age (53 ± 17 years vs. 45 ± 18 years, p < 0.01), electrolyte disturbance (30.3% vs 18.1%, p=0.029), glycemic index (33.3% vs 18.2%, p=0.008), tube feeding (83.3% vs 67.1%, p=0.01), mechanical ventilation (50% vs 35.7%, p=0.035), sedation with fentanyl (24.2 vs 13.6, p=0.035), use of insulin (33.8% vs 21.7%, p=0.042), and higher Charlson score (2.61 vs 2.17, p=0.041) were significantly associated with death on the adjusted model. However, the regression model indicated that patients admitted from the emergency (HR = 0.40, p=0.006) and glycemic index alterations (HR = 1.68, p=0.047) were associated with mortality. There was no statistically significant difference (p=0.540) in survival between patients with and without delirium, based on the survival analysis and length of hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of death was 21%, and age, electrolyte disturbance, glycemic index, tube feeding, mechanical ventilation, sedation with fentanyl, use of insulin, and higher Charlson score were associated with mortality.

Post-Intensive-Care Syndrome for the Pediatric Neurologist

The number of children who survive critical illness has steadily increased. However, lower mortality rates have resulted in a proportional increase in post-intensive-care morbidity. Critical illness in childhood affects a child's development, cognition, and family functioning. The constellation of physical, emotional, cognitive, and psychosocial symptoms that begin in the intensive care unit and continue after discharge has recently been termed post-intensive-care syndrome. A conceptual model of the post-intensive-care syndrome experienced by children who survive critical illness, their siblings, and parents has been coined post-intensive-care syndrome in pediatrics. Owing to their prolonged hospitalizations, the use of sedative medications, and the nature of their illness, children with primary neurological injury are among those at the highest risk for post-intensive-care syndrome in pediatrics. The pediatric neurologist participates in the care of children with acute brain injury throughout their hospitalization and remains involved after the patient leaves the hospital. Hence it is important for pediatric neurologists to become versed in the early recognition and management of post-intensive-care syndrome in pediatrics. In this review, we discuss the current knowledge regarding post-intensive-care syndrome in pediatrics and its risk factors. We also discuss our experience establishing Pediatric Neurocritical Care Recovery Programs at two large academic centers. Last, we provide a battery of validated tests to identify and manage the different aspects of post-intensive-care syndrome in pediatrics, which have been successfully implemented at our institutions. Dissemination of this "road map" may assist others interested in establishing recovery programs, therefore mitigating the burden of post-intensive-care morbidity in children.

Strategies to Optimize ICU Liberation (A to F) Bundle Performance in Critically Ill Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019

OBJECTIVES

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has stretched ICU resources in an unprecedented fashion and outstripped personal protective equipment supplies. The combination of a novel disease, resource limitations, and risks to medical personnel health have created new barriers to implementing the ICU Liberation ("A" for Assessment, Prevention, and Manage pain; "B" for Both Spontaneous Awakening Trials and Spontaneous Breathing Trials; "C" for Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; "D" for Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; "E" for Early Mobility and Exercise; and "F" for Family Engagement and Empowerment [ABCDEF]) Bundle, a proven ICU care approach that reduces delirium, shortens mechanical ventilation duration, prevents post-ICU syndrome, and reduces healthcare costs. This narrative review acknowledges barriers and offers strategies to optimize Bundle performance in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation.

DATA SOURCES STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

The most relevant literature, media reports, and author experiences were assessed for inclusion in this narrative review including PubMed, national newspapers, and critical care/pharmacology textbooks.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Uncertainty regarding coronavirus disease 2019 clinical course, shifts in attitude, and changes in routine behavior have hindered Bundle use. A domino effect results from: 1) changes to critical care hierarchy, priorities, and ICU team composition; 2) significant personal protective equipment shortages cause; 3) reduced/restricted physical bedside presence favoring; 4) increased depth of sedation and use of neuromuscular blockade; 5) which exacerbate drug shortages; and 6) which require prolonged use of limited ventilator resources. Other identified barriers include manageable knowledge deficits among non-ICU clinicians unfamiliar with the Bundle or among PICU specialists deploying pediatric-based Bundle approaches who are unfamiliar with adult medicine. Both groups have been enlisted to augment the adult ICU work force to meet demand. Strategies were identified to facilitate Bundle performance to liberate patients from the ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

We acknowledge current challenges that interfere with comprehensive management of critically ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Rapid response to new circumstances precisely requires established safety mechanisms and protocols like the ABCDEF Bundle to increase ICU and ventilator capacity and help survivors maximize recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 as early as possible.

Postintensive Care Syndrome: The Aftermath

Postintensive care syndrome (PICS) is a frequent but underrecognized entity. It signifies a new or worsening impairment in cognitive, psychiatric, or physical disabilities arising during critical illness and persisting long afterward. The article discusses the data presented in an accompanying original article in a cohort of Indian patients. The multiple domains of disabilities affect the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for months to years. The editorial introduces the subject providing a brief overview of the current literature. Preventive and treatment strategies involving a multidisciplinary collaboration is necessary for good outcomes.

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

Mani RK. Postintensive Care Syndrome: The Aftermath. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(5):293-294.

Sedation and Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit—A Practice-Based Approach

Introduction: Critically ill patients often require sedation for comfort and to facilitate therapeutic interventions. Sedation practice guidelines provide an evidencebased framework with recommendations that can help improve key sedation-related outcomes. Materials and Methods: We conducted a narrative review of current guidelines and recent trials on sedation. Results: From a practice perspective, current guidelines share many limitations including lack of consensus on the definition of light sedation, optimal frequency of sedation assessment, optimal timing for light sedation and consideration of combinations of sedatives. We proposed several strategies to address these limitations and improve outcomes: 1) early light sedation within the first 48 hours with time-weighted monitoring (overall time spent in light sedation in the first 48 hours—sedation intensity—has a dose-dependent relationship with mortality risk, delirium and time to extubation); 2) provision of analgesia with minimal or no sedation where possible; 3) a goal-directed and balanced multimodal approach that combines the benefits of different agents and minimise their side effects; 4) use of dexmedetomidine and atypical antipsychotics as a sedative-sparing strategy to reduce weaning-related agitation, shorten ventilation time and accelerate physical and cognitive rehabilitation; and 5) a bundled approach to sedation that provides a framework to improve relevant clinical outcomes. Conclusion: More effort is required to develop a practical, time-weighted sedation scoring system. Emphasis on a balanced, multimodal appraoch that targets light sedation from the early phase of acute critical illness is important to achieve optimal sedation, lower mortality, shorten time on ventilator and reduce delirium. Ann Acad Med Singapore;49:215–25 Key words: Analgesia, Benzodiazepine, Critical Care, Dexmedetomidine, Propofol

COVID-19: ICU delirium management during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2-causing Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19), emerged as a public health threat in December 2019 and was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Delirium, a dangerous untoward prognostic development, serves as a barometer of systemic injury in critical illness. The early reports of 25% encephalopathy from China are likely a gross underestimation, which we know occurs whenever delirium is not monitored with a valid tool. Indeed, patients with COVID-19 are at accelerated risk for delirium due to at least seven factors including (1) direct central nervous system (CNS) invasion, (2) induction of CNS inflammatory mediators, (3) secondary effect of other organ system failure, (4) effect of sedative strategies, (5) prolonged mechanical ventilation time, (6) immobilization, and (7) other needed but unfortunate environmental factors including social isolation and quarantine without family. Given early insights into the pathobiology of the virus, as well as the emerging interventions utilized to treat the critically ill patients, delirium prevention and management will prove exceedingly challenging, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU). The main focus during the COVID-19 pandemic lies within organizational issues, i.e., lack of ventilators, shortage of personal protection equipment, resource allocation, prioritization of limited mechanical ventilation options, and end-of-life care. However, the standard of care for ICU patients, including delirium management, must remain the highest quality possible with an eye towards long-term survival and minimization of issues related to post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). This article discusses how ICU professionals (e.g., physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacologists) can use our knowledge and resources to limit the burden of delirium on patients by reducing modifiable risk factors despite the imposed heavy workload and difficult clinical challenges posed by the pandemic.

Best Practices for Conducting Interprofessional Team Rounds to Facilitate Performance of the ICU Liberation (ABCDEF) Bundle

OBJECTIVES

Daily ICU interprofessional team rounds, which incorporate the ICU Liberation ("A" for Assessment, Prevention, and Manage Pain; "B" for Both Spontaneous Awakening Trials and Spontaneous Breathing Trials; "C" for Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; "D" for Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; "E" for Early Mobility and Exercise; "F" for Family Engagement and Empowerment [ABCDEF]) Bundle, support both the care coordination and regular provider communication necessary for Bundle execution. This article describes evidence-based practices for conducting effective interprofessional team rounds in the ICU to improve Bundle performance.

DESIGN

Best practice synthesis.

METHODS

The authors, each extensively involved in the Society of Critical Care Medicine's ICU Liberation Campaign, reviewed the pertinent literature to identify how ICU interprofessional team rounds can be optimized to increase ICU Liberation adherence.

RESULTS

Daily ICU interprofessional team rounds that foster ICU Liberation Bundle use support both care coordination and regular provider communication within and between teams. Evidence-based best practices for conducting effective interprofessional team rounds in the ICU include the optimal structure for ICU interprofessional team rounds; the importance of conducting rounds at patients' bedside; essential participants in rounds; the inclusion of ICU patients and their families in rounds-based discussions; and incorporation of the Bundle into the Electronic Health Record. Interprofessional team rounds in the ICU ideally employ communication strategies to foster inclusive and supportive behaviors consistent with interprofessional collaboration in the ICU. Patient care discussions during interprofessional team rounds benefit from being patient-centered and goal-oriented. Documentation of ICU Liberation Bundle elements in the Electronic Health Record may help facilitate team communication and decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Conducting high-quality interprofessional team rounds in the ICU is a key strategy to support ICU Liberation Bundle use.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults: a narrative review

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most frequent ICU-acquired infections. Reported incidences vary widely from 5 to 40% depending on the setting and diagnostic criteria. VAP is associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay. The estimated attributable mortality of VAP is around 10%, with higher mortality rates in surgical ICU patients and in patients with mid-range severity scores at admission. Microbiological confirmation of infection is strongly encouraged. Which sampling method to use is still a matter of controversy. Emerging microbiological tools will likely modify our routine approach to diagnosing and treating VAP in the next future. Prevention of VAP is based on minimizing the exposure to mechanical ventilation and encouraging early liberation. Bundles that combine multiple prevention strategies may improve outcomes, but large randomized trials are needed to confirm this. Treatment should be limited to 7 days in the vast majority of the cases. Patients should be reassessed daily to confirm ongoing suspicion of disease, antibiotics should be narrowed as soon as antibiotic susceptibility results are available, and clinicians should consider stopping antibiotics if cultures are negative.

COVID-19: What do we need to know about ICU delirium during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic?

In March 2020, the World Health Organisation announced the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As well as respiratory failure, the SARS-CoV-2 may cause central nervous system (CNS) involvement, including delirium occurring in critically ill patients (ICU delirium). Due attention must be paid to this subject in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Delirium, the detection of which takes less than two minutes, is frequently underestimated during daily routine ICU care, but it may be a prodromal symptom of infection or hypoxia associated with severe respiratory failure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, systematic delirium monitoring using validated tests (CAM-ICU or ICDSC) may be sacrificed. This is likely to be due to the fact that the main emphasis is placed on organisational issues, i.e. the lack of ventilators, setting priorities for limited mechanical ventilation options, and a shortage of personal protective equipment. Early identification of patients with delirium is critical in patients with COVID-19 because the occurrence of delirium may be an early symptom of worsening respiratory failure or of infectious spread to the CNS mediated by potential neuroinvasive mechanisms of the coronavirus. The purpose of this review is to identify problems related to the development of delirium during the COVID-19 epidemic, which are presented in three areas: i) factors contributing to delirium in COVID-19, ii) potential pathophysiological factors of delirium in COVID-19, and iii) long-term consequences of delirium in COVID-19. This article discusses how healthcare workers can reduce the burden of delirium by identifying potential risk factors and difficulties during challenges associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.