Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU: 2023

RATIONALE

Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care hospitals have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients.

OBJECTIVES

To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients.

PANEL DESIGN

The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

METHODS

We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs).

RESULTS

The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among unselected patients. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Executive Summary: Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU

RATIONALE

Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care facilities have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients.

OBJECTIVES

To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients.

PANEL DESIGN

The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs).

RESULTS

The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among "unselected" patients due to the absence of data regarding the benefit and the potential harms of false positive alarms, the risk of alarm fatigue, and cost. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system (GPS).

CONCLUSIONS

The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

A scoping review of barriers, facilitators and tools to escalation of care processes in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

Escalation of care is the timely recognition and communication of deterioration in a previously stable patient. Delays in escalating care may lead to unnecessary patient morbidity and mortality. There is currently a paucity of synthesis of work focused on the initiation of escalation of care in the emergency department (ED), where unique challenges may be present. We sought to complete a scoping review to investigate: (1) factors (barriers and/or facilitators) affecting clinicians in escalating care in the ED; and (2) tools that support clinicians in ED escalation of care processes.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review guided by the Arksey & O'Malley framework, and in accordance with PRISMA Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL on November 30th, 2020. Extracted data was analyzed via qualitative content analysis. Review and data abstraction were completed by two independent reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved via consensus meetings with a third reviewer.

RESULTS

Of the 4527 unique records identified, 13 studies met our inclusion criteria. Studies described standard escalation practices including detection, reporting, and response. Factors influencing escalation of care were described on individual (confidence, comfort, and expertise), interpersonal (communication and the nurse-physician relationship), organizational (workload and staffing), and environmental (distractions and layout) levels. Four ED-specific tools for escalation of care were also identified.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified 13 studies that contained information on processes, factors influencing and/or tools used to facilitate escalation of care in the ED. They may serve as valuable starting points for ED clinicians and administrators who are building or reforming local escalation of care processes.

The effects of musical stimulation on the level of consciousness among patients with head trauma hospitalized in intensive care units: A randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Improvement in the level of consciousness (LOC) is considered as an indicator of recovery among patients with head trauma (HT). musical stimulation is a simple noninvasive intervention with potential positive effects on LOC. This study evaluated the effects of musical stimulation on LOC among patients with HT hospitalized in intensive care unit.

METHODS

This clinical trial was conducted in 2018-2019. Fifty-four patients with HT were purposively and consecutively recruited from two trauma intensive care units in Qazvin, Iran, and randomly allocated to a control (n = 27) and an intervention (n = 27) group. Participants in the intervention group received fifteen-minute musical stimulation once daily for seven consecutive days using an MP3 player and a headphone for their counterparts, the headphones were silent for 15 min without receiving any musical stimulation once daily for seven consecutive days. A demographic questionnaire, the Glasgow Coma Scale, and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale were used for data collection. LOC was daily assessed before and after each musical stimulation session. The SPSS program (v. 23.0) was used for data analysis at a significance level of less than 0.05.

FINDINGS

There were significant between-group differences respecting the posttest mean score of LOC in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh days of the study intervention (P < 0.05)., the posttest mean score of LOC in the intervention group significantly increased in the intervention group (P < 0.0001), while it did not significantly change in the control group (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

musical stimulation is effective in significantly improving LOC among hospitalized patients with HT. Therefore, it can be used as a non-expensive noninvasive intervention to improve treatment outcomes among these patients.