Supraglottic Airway Versus Tracheal Intubation for Airway Management in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

Given the uncertainty regarding the optimal approach for airway management for adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the use of supraglottic airways (SGAs) with tracheal intubation for initial airway management in OHCA.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, as well as unpublished sources, from inception to February 7, 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult OHCA patients randomized to SGA compared with tracheal intubation for initial prehospital airway management.

DATA EXTRACTION

Reviewers screened abstracts, full texts, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effects model. We used the modified Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We preregistered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42022342935).

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included four RCTs ( n = 13,412 patients). Compared with tracheal intubation , SGA use probably increases return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (relative risk [RR] 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15; moderate certainty) and leads to a faster time to airway placement (mean difference 2.5 min less; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4 min less; high certainty). SGA use may have no effect on survival at longest follow-up (RR 1.06; 95% CI, 0.84-1.34; low certainty), has an uncertain effect on survival with good functional outcome (RR 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82-1.50; very low certainty), and may have no effect on risk of aspiration (RR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.16; low certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

In adult patients with OHCA, compared with tracheal intubation, the use of SGA for initial airway management probably leads to more ROSC, and faster time to airway placement, but may have no effect on longer-term survival outcomes or aspiration events.

Intraoperative use of balanced crystalloids versus 0.9% saline: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled studies

BACKGROUND

The evidence regarding optimal crystalloid use in the perioperative period remains unclear. As the primary aim of this study, we sought to summarise the data from RCTs examining whether use of balanced crystalloids compared with 0.9% saline (saline) leads to differences in patient-important outcomes.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Clinicaltrials.gov, from inception until December 15, 2022, and included RCTs that intraoperatively randomised adult participants to receive either balanced fluids or saline. We pooled data using a random-effects model and present risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs), along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed individual study risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool, and certainty of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Of 5959 citations, we included 38 RCTs (n=3776 patients). Pooled analysis showed that intraoperative use of balanced fluids compared with saline had an uncertain effect on postoperative mortality analysed at the longest point of follow-up (RR 1.51, 95% CI: 0.42-5.36) and postoperative need for renal replacement therapy (RR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.56-1.59), both very low certainty. Furthermore, use of balanced crystalloids probably leads to a higher postoperative serum pH (MD 0.05, 95% CI: 0.04-0.06), moderate certainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of balanced crystalloids, compared with saline, in the perioperative setting has an uncertain effect on mortality and need for renal replacement therapy but probably improves postoperative acid-base status. Further research is needed to determine whether balanced crystalloid use affects patient-important outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42022367593.

Effect of Awake Prone Positioning on Endotracheal Intubation in Patients With COVID-19 and Acute Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The efficacy and safety of prone positioning is unclear in nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of prone positioning in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Pragmatic, unblinded randomized clinical trial conducted at 21 hospitals in Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the US. Eligible adult patients with COVID-19 were not intubated and required oxygen (≥40%) or noninvasive ventilation. A total of 400 patients were enrolled between May 19, 2020, and May 18, 2021, and final follow-up was completed in July 2021.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to awake prone positioning (n = 205) or usual care without prone positioning (control; n = 195).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation within 30 days of randomization. The secondary outcomes included mortality at 60 days, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days, days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days, adverse events, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Among the 400 patients who were randomized (mean age, 57.6 years [SD, 12.83 years]; 117 [29.3%] were women), all (100%) completed the trial. In the first 4 days after randomization, the median duration of prone positioning was 4.8 h/d (IQR, 1.8 to 8.0 h/d) in the awake prone positioning group vs 0 h/d (IQR, 0 to 0 h/d) in the control group. By day 30, 70 of 205 patients (34.1%) in the prone positioning group were intubated vs 79 of 195 patients (40.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.12], P = .20; absolute difference, -6.37% [95% CI, -15.83% to 3.10%]). Prone positioning did not significantly reduce mortality at 60 days (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.40], P = .54; absolute difference, -1.15% [95% CI, -9.40% to 7.10%]) and had no significant effect on days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days or on days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days. There were no serious adverse events in either group. In the awake prone positioning group, 21 patients (10%) experienced adverse events and the most frequently reported were musculoskeletal pain or discomfort from prone positioning (13 of 205 patients [6.34%]) and desaturation (2 of 205 patients [0.98%]). There were no reported adverse events in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19, prone positioning, compared with usual care without prone positioning, did not significantly reduce endotracheal intubation at 30 days. However, the effect size for the primary study outcome was imprecise and does not exclude a clinically important benefit.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04350723.

Dexmedetomidine vs other sedatives in critically ill mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Dexmedetomidine is an alternative sedative that may achieve lighter sedation, reduce delirium, and provide analgesia. Our objective was to perform a comprehensive systematic review summarizing the large body of evidence, determining if dexmedetomidine reduces delirium compared to conventional sedatives. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021. Independent pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine to other sedatives for mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The results were reported as relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 77 randomized trials (n = 11,997) were included. Compared to other sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.81; moderate certainty), the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 1.8 h, 95% CI  - 2.89 to  - 0.71; low certainty), and ICU length of stay (MD  - 0.32 days, 95% CI  - 0.42 to  - 0.22; low certainty). Dexmedetomidine use increased the risk of bradycardia (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.13; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; low certainty). In mechanically ventilated adults, the use of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives, resulted in a lower risk of delirium, and a modest reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, but increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension.

Neuromuscular blocking agents in acute respiratory distress syndrome: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Purpose

Existing clinical practice guidelines support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, a recent large randomized clinical trial (RCT) has questioned this practice. Therefore, we updated a previous systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of NMBAs in ARDS.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE (October 2012 to July 2019), the Cochrane (Central) database, and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Register, and WHO ICTRP) for RCTs comparing the effects of NMBA as a continuous infusion versus placebo or no NMBA infusion (but allowing intermittent NMBA boluses) on patient-important outcomes for adults with ARDS. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality of the primary studies and abstracted data.

Results

Seven RCTs, including four new RCTs, met eligibility criteria for this review. These trials enrolled 1598 patients with moderate to severe ARDS at centers in the USA, France, and China. All trials assessed short-term continuous infusions of cisatracurium or vecuronium. The pooled estimate for mortality outcomes showed significant statistical heterogeneity, which was only explained by a subgroup analysis by depth of sedation in the control arm. A continuous NMBA infusion did not improve mortality when compared to a light sedation strategy with no NMBA infusion (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.86–1.15; moderate certainty; P = 0.93). On the other hand, continuous NMBA infusion reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation with as needed NMBA boluses (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.57–0.89; low certainty; P = 0.003). Continuous NMBA infusion reduced the rate of barotrauma (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35–0.85, moderate certainty; P = 0.008) across eligible trials, but the effect on ventilator-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU-acquired weakness was uncertain.

Conclusions

Inconsistency in study methods and findings precluded the pooling of all trials for mortality. In a pre-planned sensitivity analysis, the impact of NMBA infusion on mortality depends on the strategy used in the control arm, showing reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation, but no effect on mortality when compared to lighter sedation. In both situations, a continuous NMBA infusion may reduce the risk of barotrauma, but the effects on other patient-important outcomes remain unclear. Future research, including an individual patient data meta-analysis, could help clarify some of the observed findings in this updated systematic review.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).

RESULTS

After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).

RESULTS

After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

End-of-Life Skills and Professionalism for Critical Care Residents in Training: The ESPRIT Survey

End-of-life (EOL) care is a key aspect of critical care medicine (CCM) training. The goal of this study was to survey CCM residents and program directors (PDs) across Canada to describe current EOL care education. Using a literature review, we created a self-administered survey encompassing 10 CCM national objectives of training to address: (1) curricular content and evaluation methods, (2) residents' preparedness to meet these objectives, and (3) opportunities for educational improvement. We performed pilot testing and clinical sensibility testing, then distributed it to all residents and PDs across the 13 Canadian CCM programs. Our response rate was 84.3% overall (77 [81.1%] for residents and 13 [100%] for PDs). Residents rated direct observation, informal advice, and self-reflection as both the top 3 most utilized and perceived most effective teaching modalities. Residents most commonly reported comfort with skills related to pain and symptom management (n = 67, 94.3%; score > 3 on 5-point Likert scale), and least commonly reported comfort with donation after cardiac death skills (n = 26-38; 44.8%-65.5%). Base specialty and time in CCM training were independently associated with comfort ratings for some, but not all, EOL skills. With respect to family meetings, residents infrequently received feedback; however, most PDs believed feedback on 6 to 10 meetings is required for competence. When PD perceptions of teaching effectiveness were compared with resident comfort ratings, differences were most apparent for skills related to pain and symptom management, cultural awareness, and ethical principles. By the end of their first subspecialty training year, PDs expect residents to be competent at most, but not all, EOL skills. In summary, trainees and programs rely on clinical activities to develop competency in EOL care, resulting in some educational gaps. Transitioning to competency-based medical education presents an opportunity to address some of these gaps, while other gaps will require more specific curricular intervention.

A Multidisciplinary Survey to Assess Facilitators and Barriers to Successful Organ Donation in the Intensive Care Unit

INTRODUCTION

Rates of successful organ donation vary between otherwise comparable intensive care units (ICUs). The ICU staff have a unique perspective into the facilitators and barriers underlying this variation in successful deceased organ donation.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What do ICU staff perceive to be the most meaningful facilitators and barriers to deceased organ donation?

DESIGN

We designed and conducted a survey of all disciplines working in the ICU to ascertain the perceived facilitators and barriers to donation in an academic tertiary care hospital. Survey reliability was assessed using Cronbach α. Factor analysis was used to assess construct validity and identify potentially redundant survey items.

RESULTS

We had responses from 108 ICU staff, including nurses (n = 75), respiratory therapists (n = 14), physicians (n = 12), chaplains (n = 2), as well as social work, pharmacy, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy (n = 1 each). Perceived facilitators included availability of organ donation organization coordinators, explicit institutional support for donation, ICU staff culture toward donation, standardized order sets for donation, presence of ICU staff with donation experience, and bedside nurse presence at discussions about donation. Perceived barriers included ICU staff ruling out potentially suitable donors before consulting a donor coordinator, physician communication skills, low priority for organ donation among operating room staff, limited family understanding of patient prognosis and organ donation, and limited emotional readiness of families to discuss donation.

DISCUSSION

Several staff-perceived facilitators and barriers to deceased organ donation were identified in the ICU. Future research could identify strategies to promote these facilitators and overcome barriers.

Efficacy and safety of inhaled anaesthetic for postoperative sedation during mechanical ventilation in adult cardiac surgery patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of volatile anaesthetic for postoperative sedation in adult cardiac surgery patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We retrieved randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, clinical trials registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists of included articles. Independent reviewers extracted data, including patient characteristics, type of intraoperative anaesthesia, inhaled anaesthetic used, comparator sedation, and outcomes of interest, using pre-piloted forms. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Tool and evaluated the strength of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Eight studies enrolling 610 patients were included. Seven had a high and one a low risk of bias. The times to extubation after intensive care unit (ICU) admission and sedation discontinuation were, respectively, 76 [95% confidence interval (CI) -150 to - 2, I2=79%] and 74 min (95% CI - 126 to - 23, I2=96%) less in patients who were sedated using volatile anaesthetic. There was no difference in ICU or hospital length of stay. Patients who received volatile anaesthetic sedation had troponin concentrations that were 0.71 ng ml-1 (95% CI 0.23-1.2) lower than control patients. Reporting on other outcomes was varied and not suitable for meta-analysis. Volatile anaesthetic sedation may be associated with a shorter time to extubation after cardiac surgery but no change in ICU or hospital length of stay. It is associated with a significantly lower postoperative troponin concentration, but the impact of this on adverse cardiovascular outcomes is uncertain. Blinded randomized trials using intention-to-treat analysis are required. PROSPERO registry number: 2016:CRD42016033874. Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016033874.

Methodologic Innovation in Creating Clinical Practice Guidelines: Insights From the 2018 Society of Critical Care Medicine Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption Guideline Effort

OBJECTIVES

To describe novel guideline development strategies created and implemented as part of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's 2018 clinical practice guidelines for pain, agitation (sedation), delirium, immobility (rehabilitation/mobility), and sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults.

DESIGN

We involved critical illness survivors from start to finish, used and expanded upon Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology for making recommendations, identified evidence gaps, and developed communication strategies to mitigate challenges.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

Thirty-two experts from five countries, across five topic-specific sections; four methodologists, two medical librarians, four critical illness survivors, and two Society of Critical Care Medicine support staff.

INTERVENTIONS

Unique approaches included the following: 1) critical illness survivor involvement to help ensure patient-centered questions and recommendations; 2) qualitative and semiquantitative approaches for developing descriptive statements; 3) operationalizing a three-step approach to generating final recommendations; and 4) systematic identification of evidence gaps.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Critical illness survivors contributed to prioritizing topics, questions, and outcomes, evidence interpretation, recommendation formulation, and article review to ensure that their values and preferences were considered in the guidelines. Qualitative and semiquantitative approaches supported formulating descriptive statements using comprehensive literature reviews, summaries, and large-group discussion. Experts (including the methodologists and guideline chairs) developed and refined guideline recommendations through monthly topic-specific section conference calls. Recommendations were precirculated to all members, presented to, and vetted by, most members at a live meeting. Final electronic voting provided links to all forest plots, evidence summaries, and "evidence to decision" frameworks. Written comments during voting captured dissenting views and were integrated into evidence to decision frameworks and the guideline article. Evidence gaps, reflecting clinical uncertainty in the literature, were identified during the evidence to decision process, live meeting, and voting and formally incorporated into all written recommendation rationales. Frequent scheduled "check-ins" mitigated communication gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

Our multifaceted, interdisciplinary approach and novel methodologic strategies can help inform the development of future critical care clinical practice guidelines.

Resident reflections on end-of-life education: a mixed-methods study of the 3 Wishes Project

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to describe residents' experiences with end-of-life (EOL) education during a rotation in the intensive care unit (ICU), and to understand the possible influence of the 3 Wishes Project.

DESIGN

We enrolled dying patients, their families and 1-3 of their clinicians in the 3 Wishes Project, eliciting and honouring a set of 3 wishes to bring peace to the final days of a critically ill patient's life, and ease the grieving process for families. We conducted semistructured interviews with 33 residents who had cared for 50 dying patients to understand their experiences with the project. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, then analysed using a qualitative descriptive approach.

SETTING

21-bed medical surgical ICU in a tertiary care, university-affiliated hospital.

RESULTS

33 residents participated from internal medicine (24, 72.7%), anaesthesia (8, 24.2%) and laboratory medicine (1, 3.0%) programmes in postgraduate years 1-3. 3 categories and associated themes emerged. (1) EOL care is a challenging component of training in that (a) death in the ICU can invoke helplessness, (b) EOL education is inadequate, (c) personal connections with dying patients is difficult in the ICU and (d) EOL skills are valued by residents. (2) The project reframes the dying process for residents by (a) humanising this aspect of practice, (b) identifying that family engagement is central to the dying process, (c) increasing emotional responsiveness and (d) showing that care shifts, not stops. (3) The project offers experiential education by (a) intentional role modelling, (b) facilitating EOL dialogue, (c) empowering residents to care in a tangible way and (d) encouraging reflection.

CONCLUSIONS

For residents, the 3 Wishes Project integrated many forms of active learning for residents. Practice-based rather than classroom-based programmes may engage trainees to develop EOL skills transferable to other settings.