Search

Background: We examined whether a context and process-sensitive 'intelligent' checklist increases compliance with best practice compared with a paper checklist during intensive care ward rounds.Methods: We conducted a single-centre prospective before-and-after mixed-method trial in a 35 bed medical and surgical ICU. Daily ICU ward rounds were observed during two periods of 8 weeks. We compared paper checklists (control) with a dynamic (digital) clinical checklist (DCC, intervention). The primary outcome was compliance with best clinical practice, measured as the percentages of checked items and unchecked critical items. Secondary outcomes included ICU stay and the usability of digital checklists. Data are presented as median (interquartile range).Results: Clinical characteristics and severity of critical illness were similar during both control and intervention periods of study. A total of 36 clinicians visited 197 patients during 352 ward rounds using the paper checklist, compared with 211 patients during 366 ward rounds using the DCC. Per ICU round, a median of 100% of items (94.4-100.0) were completed by DCC, compared with 75.1% (66.7-86.4) by paper checklist (P=0.03). No critical items remained unchecked by the DCC, compared with 15.4% (8.3-27.3) by the paper checklist (P=0.01). The DCC was associated with reduced ICU stay (1 day [1-3]), compared with the paper checklist (2 days [1-4]; P=0.05). Usability of the DCC was judged by clinicians to require further improvement.Conclusions: A digital checklist improved compliance with best clinical practice, compared with a paper checklist, during ward rounds on a mixed ICU.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03599856. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) often require sedatives which commonly include midazolam and the more recently developed α2-receptor agonist, dexmedetomidine. It was our aim to compare the sedative and clinical effectiveness of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam in adults admitted to ICU, using an objective appraisal of randomized control trials. Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge, Cinhal, the United States National Library of Medicine, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched using keywords: ‘dexmedetomidine’, ‘midazolam’, and ‘intensive care’. These were limited to human studies and adults (>18 yr old). Six randomized controlled trials were found and were critically appraised using a standardized appraisal method. Two papers described the time spent by each intervention group within a specified target sedation range and both found no statistically significant difference between midazolam and dexmedetomidine (P=0.18 and P=0.15). A third paper found no statistically significant difference in the length of time that patients were sedated within a target zone (P=0.445). Two additional pilot studies did not report P values as they were insufficiently statistically powered. A final paper found that, of the eight occasions measured, patients on dexmedetomidine were more often within the target sedation range than patients on midazolam. The sedative benefits of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam remain inconclusive. While some secondary outcomes showed clinical effectiveness of dexmedetomidine, more research is needed to validate the findings of these studies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Many patients undergoing anaesthesia and surgery experience postoperative complications. Our aim was to investigate whether a systematic follow-up smartphone-based assessment, using recovery assessment by phone points (RAPP) compared with standard care, had a positive effect on day surgery patients' postoperative recovery. We also investigated whether there were differences in women and men's recovery and recovery scores.Methods: The study was a single-blind, multicentre randomized controlled trial. A total of 997 patients were randomly allocated to either RAPP or standard care. The Swedish web version of a quality of recovery (SwQoR) questionnaire was used to evaluate the patients' postoperative recovery, either on paper or using an application (RAPP) on postoperative days seven and 14.Results: On postoperative day seven the RAPP group reported significantly better values in seven out of 24 items of the SwQoR: sleeping difficulties; not having a general feeling of wellbeing; having difficulty feeling relaxed/comfortable; and dizziness; headache; pain in the surgical wound; and a swollen surgical wound compared with the control group, implying a good postoperative recovery. Both men and women in the RAPP group reported significantly better values (and, hence good postoperative recovery) compared with the control group in the items sleeping difficulties; not having a general feeling of wellbeing and pain in the surgical wound.Conclusions: Measurement of patient-reported outcomes using a smartphone-based application was associated with decreased discomfort from several postoperative symptoms. Systematic e-assessment can thereby increase patients' quality of recovery and identify key areas for improvement in perioperative care.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02492191. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]