ABCDE and ABCDEF care bundles: A systematic review protocol of the implementation process in intensive care units

Effectiveness of a self-assessment application in evaluating the care coordination competency of intensive care unit nurses in managing patients on life support: An intervention study

AIM

To examine the effectiveness of the feedback from the Nurses' Care Coordination Competency Scale (NCCCS) application (app) used for self-assessing the care coordination competency of intensive care unit (ICU) nurses in managing patients on life support.

METHODS

A non-randomized open-label study was conducted in Japan from November 2021 to March 2022. Participants were 318 ICU nurses from acute hospitals in Japan. They were divided manually into two groups based on their certification status. The intervention was immediate feedback on the results of the care coordination competency self-assessment through the NCCCS app; the control group performed the NCCCS survey with no feedback. The primary outcome was an increase in the NCCCS score 1 month after the intervention. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the scores of the intervention and control groups. Wilcoxon's signed rank sum test was used to compare the scores in the first and second NCCCS surveys.

RESULTS

Forty-one participants were lost to follow-up, leaving 277 participants (intervention = 141, control = 136) for analysis. One month later, NCCCS scores similarly increased in both groups. For nurses with at least 5 years of ICU experience (n = 152), the NCCCS score increased in the intervention group (n = 75) (rising point mean: 4.8, standard deviation [SD]: 9.8) compared with that in the control group (n = 77) (rising point mean: 1.3, SD: 8.3) (p = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

Feedback from the NCCCS app can improve care coordination behavior. However, a certain level of ICU experience may be required to translate feedback into improved behavior.

Liver diseases as a novel risk factor for delirium in the ICU-Delirium and hepatic encephalopathy are two distinct entities

BACKGROUND

Delirium prevalence is high in critical care settings. We examined the incidence, risk factors, and outcome of delirium in a medical intensive care unit (MICU) with a particular focus on liver diseases. We analyzed this patient population in terms of delirium risk prediction and differentiation between delirium and hepatic encephalopathy.

METHODS

We conducted an observational study and included 164 consecutive patients admitted to an MICU of a university hospital. Patients were assessed for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for ICUs and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). On admission and at the onset of delirium Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was determined. A population of patients with liver disease was compared to a population with gastrointestinal diseases. In the population with liver diseases, hepatic encephalopathy was graded according to the West Haven classification. We analyzed the incidence, subtype, predisposing, precipitating, and health-care setting-related factors, treatment, outcome of delirium and the association between delirium and hepatic encephalopathy in patients with liver diseases.

RESULTS

The incidence of delirium was 32.5% (n = 53). Univariable binary regression analyses adjusted by the Holm-Bonferroni method showed that the development of delirium was significantly determined by 10 risk factors: Alcohol abuse (p = 0.016), severity of disease (Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, p = 0.016), liver diseases (p = 0.030) and sepsis (p = 0.016) compared to the control group (gastrointestinal (GI) diseases and others), increased sodium (p = 0.016), creatinine (p = 0.030), urea (p = 0.032) or bilirubin (p = 0.042), decreased hemoglobin (p = 0.016), and mechanical ventilation (p = 0.016). Of note, we identified liver diseases as a novel and relevant risk factor for delirium. Hepatic encephalopathy was not a risk factor for delirium. Delirium and hepatic encephalopathy are both life-threatening but clearly distinct conditions. The median SOFA score for patients with delirium at delirium onset was significantly higher than the SOFA score of all patients at admission (p = 0.008). Patients with delirium had five times longer ICU stays (p = 0.004) and three times higher in-hospital mortality (p = 0.036). Patients with delirium were five times more likely to be transferred to an intensive medical rehabilitation unit for post-intensive care (p = 0.020). Treatment costs per case were more than five times higher in patients with delirium than in patients without delirium (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

The 10 risk factors identified in this study should be assessed upon admission to ICU for effective detection, prevention, and treatment of delirium. Liver diseases are a novel risk factor for delirium with a level of significance comparable to sepsis as an established risk factor. Of note, in patients with liver diseases delirium and hepatic encephalopathy should be recognized as distinct entities to initiate appropriate treatment. Therefore, we propose a new algorithm for efficient diagnosis, characterization, and treatment of altered mental status in the ICU. This algorithm integrates the 10 risk factor prediction-model for delirium and prompts grading of the severity of hepatic encephalopathy using the West Haven classification if liver disease is present or newly diagnosed.

Pediatric Ventilation Liberation: Bundled Extubation Readiness and Analgosedation Pathways Decrease Mechanical Ventilation Duration and Benzodiazepine Exposure

BACKGROUND

Recent studies reported that children on mechanical ventilation who were managed with an analgosedation approach and standardized extubation readiness testing experienced better outcomes, including decreased delirium and invasive mechanical ventilation duration.

METHODS

This was a quality improvement project in a 24-bed pediatric ICU within a single center, including subjects ≤ 18 years old who required invasive mechanical ventilation via an oral or nasal endotracheal tube. The aim was to decrease the invasive mechanical ventilation duration for all the subjects by 25% within 9 months through the development and implementation of bundled benzodiazepine-sparing analgosedation and extubation readiness testing clinical pathways.

RESULTS

In the pre-implementation cohort, there were 274 encounters, with 253 (92.3%) that met inclusion for ending in an extubation attempt. In the implementation cohort, there were 367 encounters with 332 (90.5%) that ended in an extubation attempt. The mean invasive mechanical ventilation duration decreased by 23% (Pre 3.95 d vs Post 3.1 d; P = .039) after the implementation without a change in the mean pediatric ICU length of stay (Pre 7.5 d vs Post 6.5 d; P = .42). No difference in unplanned extubation (P > .99) or extubation failure rates (P = .67) were demonstrated. Sedation levels as evaluated by the mean State Behavioral Scale were similar (Pre -1.0 vs Post -1.1; P = .09). The median total benzodiazepine dose administered decreased by 75% (Pre 0.4 vs Post 0.1 mg/kg/ventilated day; P < .001). No difference in narcotic withdrawal (Pre 17.8% vs Post 16.4%; P = .65) or with delirium treatment (Pre 5.5% vs Post 8.7%; P = .14) was demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary, bundled benzodiazepine-sparing analgosedation and extubation readiness testing approach resulted in a reduction in mechanical ventilation duration and benzodiazepine exposure without impacting key balancing measures. External validity needs to be evaluated in similar centers and consensus on best practices developed.

ABCDE and ABCDEF care bundles: A systematic review of the implementation process in intensive care units

BACKGROUND

The ABCDE (Awakening and Breathing Coordination of daily sedation and ventilator removal trials, Delirium monitoring and management, and Early mobility and exercise) and ABCDEF (Assessment, prevent and manage pain, Both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials, Choice of analgesia and sedation, assess, prevent and manage Delirium, Early mobility and exercise, Family engagement) care bundles consist of small sets of evidence-based interventions and are part of the science behind Intensive Care Unit (ICU) liberation. This review sought to analyse the process of implementation of ABCDE and ABCDEF care bundles in ICUs, identifying barriers, facilitators and changes in perception and attitudes of healthcare professionals; and to estimate care bundle effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

We selected qualitative and quantitative studies addressing the implementation of ABCDE and ABCDEF bundles in the ICU, identified on MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, Virtual Health Library and Open Grey, without restriction on language or date of publication, up to June 2018. The outcomes measured were ICU and hospital length of stay; mechanical ventilation time; incidence and prevalence of delirium or coma; level of agitation and sedation; early mobilization; mortality in ICU and hospital; change in perception, attitude or behaviour of the stakeholders; and change in knowledge of health professionals. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias and methodological quality. A meta-analysis of random effects was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included, 13 of which had a predominantly qualitative and 7 a quantitative design (31,604 participants). The implementation strategies were categorized according to the taxonomy developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group and eighty strategies were identified. The meta-analysis results showed that implementation of the bundles may reduce length of ICU stay, mechanical ventilation time, delirium, ICU and hospital mortality, and promoted early mobilization in critically-ill patients.

CONCLUSIONS

: This study can contribute to the planning and execution of the implementation process of ABCDE and ABCDEF care bundles in ICUs. However, the effectiveness and safety of these bundles need to be corroborated by further studies with greater methodological rigor.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019121307.

Implementation Science in Pediatric Critical Care - Sedation and Analgesia Practices as a Case Study

Sedation and analgesia (SA) management is essential practice in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Over the past decade, there has been significant interest in optimal SA management strategy, due to reports of the adverse effects of SA medications and their relationship to ICU delirium. We reviewed 13 studies examining SA practices in the PICU over the past decade for the purposes of reporting the study design, outcomes of interest, SA protocols used, strategies for implementation, and the patient-centered outcomes. We highlighted the paucity of evidence-base for these practices and also described the existing gaps in the intersection of implementation science (IS) and SA protocols in the PICU. Future studies would benefit from a focus on effective implementation strategies to introduce and sustain evidence-based SA protocols, as well as novel quasi-experimental study designs that will help determine their impact on relevant clinical outcomes, such as the occurrence of ICU delirium. Adoption of the available evidence-based practices into routine care in the PICU remains challenging. Using SA practice as an example, we illustrated the need for a structured approach to the implementation science in pediatric critical care. Key components of the successful adoption of evidence-based best practice include the assessment of the local context, both resources and barriers, followed by a context-specific strategy for implementation and a focus on sustainability and integration of the practice into the permanent workflow.

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.

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.

Inconsistent relationship between depth of sedation and intensive care outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine the effect of depth of sedation on intensive care mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and other clinically important outcomes.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO from 2000 to 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that examined the effect of sedation depth were included. Two reviewers independently screened, selected articles, extracted data and appraised quality. Data on study design, population, setting, patient characteristics, study interventions, depth of sedation and relevant outcomes were extracted. Quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools.

RESULTS

We included data from 26 studies (n=7865 patients): 8 RCTs and 18 cohort studies. Heterogeneity of studies was substantial. There was no significant effect of lighter sedation on intensive care mortality. Lighter sedation did not affect duration of mechanical ventilation in RCTs (mean difference (MD): -1.44 days (95% CI -3.79 to 0.91)) but did in cohort studies (MD: -1.52 days (95% CI -2.71 to -0.34)). No statistically significant benefit of lighter sedation was identified in RCTs. In cohort studies, lighter sedation improved time to extubation, intensive care and hospital length of stay and ventilator-associated pneumonia. We found no significant effects for hospital mortality, delirium or adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Evidence of benefit from lighter sedation is limited, with inconsistency between observational and randomised studies. Positive effects were mainly limited to low quality evidence from observational studies, which could be attributable to bias and confounding factors.

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.

Understanding patients' experiences of being mechanically ventilated in the Intensive Care Unit: Findings from a meta-synthesis and meta-summary

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the evidence reported in qualitative studies concerning the lived experiences of adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation in Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU have been reported to suffer from severe physical and emotional responses such as hopelessness, anxiety, high levels of frustration and stress. Recent improvements in the field of mechanical ventilation and sedative medications as experienced by patients that can inform nursing care have not been summarised to date.

DESIGN

A systematic review of qualitative studies followed by a meta-synthesis and a meta-summary was performed.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched by two authors in June 2019. A total of nine studies were included and evaluated based on their methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 24 codes emerged from the abstraction process, which were categorised into 11 categories and four themes: (a) "The effect of the intense stress on the body's systems," (b) "The induced negative emotional situations," (c) "The feeling of being cared for in a hospital setting" and (d) "The perceived support from the family and loved ones." Furthermore, the most frequent codes across studies were "Being afraid," "Feeling supervised," "Feeling comforted," "Failing to communicate," and "Experiencing difficulties in breathing," with an intensity of 66.6%.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving mechanical ventilation have expressed a general sense of vulnerability, of which critical care nurses need to be aware.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Findings suggest the need for improvements at the nursing, unit, educational and policy levels; furthermore, more research is also required at the international levels given the current trends towards no sedation protocols for the management of ICU patients: listening to their experiences becomes imperative, in order to ensure an awake, comfortable and ventilator-tolerant patient.

Strategies to effect change in the ICU

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update on implementation efforts in the care of critically ill patients, with a focus on work published in the last 2 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Only half of surveyed members of the multidisciplinary care team in the ICU were aware of the Choosing Wisely campaign, and of those that were, approximately one-third reported no implementation of the recommendations. Barriers to implementation of the ABCDE bundle extend to beyond patient-level domains, and include clinician-related, protocol-related, and other domains. Prospective audit and feedback approaches have demonstrated moderate success for improving the quality of antibiotic prescription practices in the ICU.

SUMMARY

Clinical research in intensive care has moved beyond simple discovery and dissemination. Best practices must be applied to effect change in ICU care, requiring the application of principles from implementation science. Future work should move beyond simple before-after evaluations to provide a stronger case for causal inference following implementation efforts.

An acceptability pilot of the facilitating active management in lung illness with engaged surrogates (FAMILIES) study

Approximately half of the surrogate decision makers of critically ill adults are at risk for negative emotional burden. Decision support and effective surrogate-clinician communication buffers against such experiences. The objective of this study is to evaluate the acceptability of a new surrogate-targeted educational tool that promotes engagement with clinicians and advocacy for 2 evidence-based practices in the provision of mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure: spontaneous awakening and breathing trials.A panel of 44 former patients and surrogates of a 20-bed medical intensive care unit in a large academic hospital responded to an online survey. Acceptability was measured on 3 dimensions: attitudes toward the content and delivery of information, objective knowledge translation, and subjective knowledge acquisition.More than 80% of participants found the tool to be easy to read, and over 90% felt that the tool provided actionable recommendations. A significant number of previously unsure participants were able to identify what spontaneous awakening and breathing trials are and when they occur, and 16% to 36% reported significant improvements in their subjective understanding of the target evidence-based practices, after being exposed to the educational tool.This line of work seeks to reduce surrogates' negative emotional burden while also promoting quality critical care. The educational tool provides a promising new way to promote surrogate-clinician communication, by increasing surrogates' knowledge about and encouraging advocacy for evidence-based practices in the provision of mechanical ventilation.