An evidence-based approach to round tables and consensus conferences

Implementing and assessing an evidence-based electrolyte dosing order form in the medical ICU

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and nursing acceptability of a nursing initiated, evidence-based order form to replace potassium, magnesium, and phosphate in the MICU.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared patients receiving electrolyte replacement with the order form to matched historical control patients receiving traditional electrolyte replacement (no order form). The primary outcomes were absolute change in serum concentrations and the proportion of doses achieving normal serum concentrations. Other outcomes were adverse events as documented in the medical record and nursing acceptability as assessed by survey.

RESULTS

The 2 groups (12 in each group) were similar. The order form and control groups received 36 and 62 potassium doses, 14 and 48 magnesium doses, and 34 and 13 phosphorus doses, respectively. Doses of all three electrolytes were significantly larger with the order form. Absolute changes in potassium, magnesium, and phosphorus serum concentrations for the order form group and control group were 0.36+/-0.42 versus 0.11+/-0.43 mmol/l (p<0.01), 0.56+/-0.69 versus 0.13+/-0.40 mequiv./l (p=0.07), and 0.53+/-0.82 versus 0.66+/-0.83 mg/dl (p=0.63), respectively. Normal serum concentrations achieved for each electrolyte replacement dose in the order form group and control group were 72% versus 18% (p<0.001), 86% versus 21% (p<0.001), and 47% versus 62% (p=0.57), respectively. No adverse events occurred. The nursing survey showed satisfaction and comfort using the order form.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the order form provided greater efficiency for replacing potassium and magnesium but not phosphorus without increasing the occurrence of adverse events. The order form was well received by nursing staff.

Prognosis in critical care

Prognostic risk prediction models have been employed in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting since the 1980s and provide health care providers with important information to help inform decisions related to treatment and prognosis, as well as to compare outcomes across institutions. Prognostic models for critical care are among the most widely utilized and tested predictive models in healthcare. In this article, we review and compare mortality prediction models, including the APACHE (1981), SAPS (1984), APACHE-II (1985), MPM (1987), APACHE-III (1991), SAPS-II (1993), and MPM-II (1993). We emphasize the importance of model calibration in this domain. In addition, we present a brief review of the statistical methodology, multiple logistic regression, which underlies most of the models currently used in critical care.

Recent innovations in intensive care unit risk-prediction models

During the past 20 years, ICU risk-prediction models have undergone significant development, validation, and refinement. Among the general ICU severity of illness scoring systems, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE), Mortality Prediction Model (MPM), and the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) have become the most accepted and used. To risk-adjust patients with longer, more severe illnesses like sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome, several models of organ dysfunction or failure have become available, including the Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS), the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), and the Logistic Organ Dysfunction Score (LODS). Recent innovations in risk adjustment include automatic physiology and diagnostic variable retrieval and the use of artificial intelligence. These innovations have the potential of extending the uses of case-mix and severity-of-illness adjustment in the areas of clinical research, patient care, and administration. The challenges facing intensivists in the next few years are to further develop these models so that they can be used throughout the IUC stay to assess quality of care and to extend them to more specific patient groups such as the elderly and patients with chronic ICU courses.

Recommendations of the Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia--dissemination, implementation, and evaluation of impact

BACKGROUND

Subsequent to the development of consensus statements on a clinical topic, it is vital to establish a plan for dissemination, implementation and evaluation of impact. Consensus statements can be used for both guiding continuing medical education (CME) and producing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Insufficient attention to dissemination can lead to a failure to change physician behaviour and improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

A plan to disseminate the conclusions of the Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia (CCCD) was developed. This plan was based on a literature review of CME and CPGs. A Medline search was performed on the dissemination and evaluation of the 1989 Canadian Consensus Conference on the Assessment of Dementia (CCCAD) and other published guides for physicians on dementia care. CCCD dissemination that has occurred to date (June, 2000) was reviewed in this paper.

RESULTS

Lectures and unsolicited printed material are weak forms of CME. Small-group interactive CME that provides practice opportunities appears to be the most effective way to change physician behaviour. The ability of CPGs to change physician behaviour is uncertain. It appears that inadequate attention has been placed on CPG dissemination and implementation. The CCCAD had a modest impact on clinical practice in Canada. While dissemination of the conclusions of the CCCD has taken place, evaluation of the impact of the CCCD has yet to be done. Local initiatives utilizing the conclusions of the CCCD are on-going.

CONCLUSIONS

Further work is needed on how to optimize the impact of consensus statements and CPGs. While dissemination of the CCCD has occurred, it is currently unknown whether it has led to any change in physician practices.