Emergency Palliative Care: Hospice Patients in the Emergency Department

In this segment of the emergency department (ED) palliative care (PC) case series, we discuss a patient on hospice who presented to the ED for the management of acute symptoms and potential procedural intervention. Hospice patients frequently visit the ED and can challenge typical ED paradigms of care that often include resuscitative efforts and broad workups. Our patient had a history of advanced liver cancer, and his ED presentation was prompted by worsening abdominal pain from ascites requiring serial paracentesis. PC consultation was requested to help address the patient's symptoms and create a plan of care. The PC clinician played an important role in supporting aggressive symptom management, re-evaluating goals of care, addressing concerns about hospice, and facilitating changes in code status requested for a procedure.

Success of blinding a procedural intervention in a randomised controlled trial in preterm infants receiving respiratory support

BACKGROUND

Blinding of treatment allocation from treating clinicians in neonatal randomised controlled trials can minimise performance bias, but its effectiveness is rarely assessed.

METHODS

To examine the effectiveness of blinding a procedural intervention from treating clinicians in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive surfactant therapy versus sham treatment in preterm infants of gestation 25-28 weeks with respiratory distress syndrome. The intervention (minimally invasive surfactant therapy or sham) was performed behind a screen within the first 6 h of life by a 'study team' uninvolved in clinical care including decision-making. Procedure duration and the study team's words and actions during the sham treatment mimicked those of the minimally invasive surfactant therapy procedure. Post-intervention, three clinicians completed a questionnaire regarding perceived group allocation, with the responses matched against actual intervention and categorised as correct, incorrect, or unsure. Success of blinding was calculated using validated blinding indices applied to the data overall (James index, successful blinding defined as > 0.50), or to the two treatment allocation groups (Bang index, successful blinding: -0.30 to 0.30). Blinding success was measured within staff role, and the associations between blinding success and procedural duration and oxygenation improvement post-procedure were estimated.

RESULTS

From 1345 questionnaires in relation to a procedural intervention in 485 participants, responses were categorised as correct in 441 (33%), incorrect in 142 (11%), and unsure in 762 (57%), with similar proportions for each of the response categories in the two treatment arms. The James index indicated successful blinding overall 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.70). The Bang index was 0.28 (95% CI 0.23-0.32) in the minimally invasive surfactant therapy group and 0.17 (95% CI 0.12-0.21) in the sham arm. Neonatologists more frequently guessed the correct intervention (47%) than bedside nurses (36%), neonatal trainees (31%), and other nurses (24%). For the minimally invasive surfactant therapy intervention, the Bang index was linearly related to procedural duration and oxygenation improvement post-procedure. No evidence of such relationships was seen in the sham arm.

CONCLUSION

Blinding of a procedural intervention from clinicians is both achievable and measurable in neonatal randomised controlled trials.

Procedural and educational interventions to reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia rate and central line-associated blood stream infection rate

BACKGROUND

Implementing best practice guidelines for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and central line-associated blood stream infection (CLA-BSI) has variable success. Our institution was concerned with high rates of VAP and CLA-BSI. This retrospective study was undertaken to see whether implementation of the below practices would reduce the rates of VAP and CLA-BSI without resorting to more expensive interventions such as subglottic endotracheal (ET) tube suctioning or silver-impregnated ET tubes. We utilized easily collectable data (standardized infection ratios [SIRs]) to rapidly assess whether interventions already in place were successful. This avoided cumbersome data collection and review.

METHODS

Retrospective data review calculated SIRs using National Healthcare Safety Network benchmarks. Rates and SIRs were compared using z tests with P values <.05 considered statistically significant. This data review attempted to examine the impact of education campaigns, staff meetings, in-services, physician checklist, nurse checklist, charge nurse checklist implementation, and chlorhexidine gluconate oral care addition to the VAP bundle. Additionally, central line insertion required nursing supervision, a checklist, and physician signature.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of VAP went from 9.88 occurrences/1000 vent days in 2009 to 0 occurrences/1000 vent days in 2010 (P < .001). The CLA-BSI occurrences/1000 line days were 2.86 in 2009 and 0.97 in 2010 (P = .0187). The SIR for VAP was 4.12 in 2009 and 0 in 2010 (P < .001). For CLA-BSI, the SIR was 1.1 in 2009 and 0.37 in 2010 (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to improve physician, patient, and staff education, and checklist implementation resulted in a decrease in VAP and CLA-BSI. This study confirms the applicability of best practice guidelines and suggests a benefit to the use of checklists. We utilize a practical approach for examining the success of these changes.

Improving child protection: a systematic review of training and procedural interventions

AIM

To synthesise published evidence regarding the effectiveness of training and procedural interventions aimed at improving the identification and management of child abuse and neglect by health professionals.

METHODS

Systematic review for the period 1994 to 2005 of studies that evaluated child protection training and procedural interventions. Main outcome measures were learning achievement, attitudinal change, and clinical behaviour.

RESULTS

Seven papers that examined the effectiveness of procedural interventions and 15 papers that evaluated training programmes met the inclusion criteria. Critical appraisal showed that evaluation of interventions was on the whole poor. It was found that certain procedural interventions (such as the use of checklists and structured forms) can result in improved recording of important clinical information and may also alert clinical staff to the possibility of abuse. While a variety of innovative training programmes were identified, there was an absence of rigorous evaluation of their impact. However a small number of one-group pre- and post-studies suggest improvements in a range of attitudes necessary for successful engagement in the child protection process.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence supports the use of procedural changes that improve the documentation of suspected child maltreatment and that enhance professional awareness. The lack of an evidence based approach to the implementation of child protection training may restrict the ability of all health professionals to fulfil their role in the child protection process. Formal evaluation of a variety of models for the delivery of this training is urgently needed with subsequent dissemination of results that highlight those found to be most effective.