Search

BACKGROUND: Camicinal is a novel, nonmacrolide, motilin receptor agonist that accelerates gastric emptying in critically ill patients with established feed intolerance. The primary question was whether the preemptive administration of camicinal increased the provision of enteral nutrition (EN) to critically ill patients with risk factors that predisposed to feed intolerance. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patients at risk for feed intolerance, defined as receiving moderate to high doses of vasopressors or opiates, or admitted because of multiple traumatic injuries or with brain injury, received either enteral camicinal 50 mg or placebo daily for a maximum of 7 days, along with EN administered according to a standardized feeding protocol. The primary outcome was the daily adequacy of enteral feed delivered, as assessed by percentage of goal volume (delivered/prescribed × 100) before development of intolerance. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients participated. The administration of camicinal did not result in a statistically significant clinical difference in the daily average percentage goal volume delivered (camicinal vs placebo: 77% [95% confidence interval: 71, 83] vs 68% (58, 78); mean difference 9% [-5, 23]; P = 0.21). Similarly, there were no differences in the percentage goal calories (76% [65, 88] vs 68% [60, 77]) and protein (76% [66, 86] vs 70% [61, 80]) administered, or the incidence of feed intolerance (15% vs 14%). CONCLUSION: The incidence of feed intolerance was low in both groups. In this cohort the preemptive administration of enteral camicinal did not significantly augment the provision of goal EN.

Background: As many as half of all patients with major traumatic injuries do not receive the recommended care, with variance in preventable mortality reported across the globe. This variance highlights the need for a comprehensive process for monitoring and reviewing patient care, central to which is a consistent peer-review process that includes trauma system safety and human factors. There is no published, evidence-informed standardised tool that considers these factors for use in adult or paediatric trauma case peer-review. The aim of this research was to develop and validate a trauma case review tool to facilitate clinical review of paediatric trauma patient care in extracting information to facilitate monitoring, inform change and enable loop closure. Methods: Development of the trauma case review tool was multi-faceted, beginning with a review of the trauma audit tool literature. Data were extracted from the literature to inform iterative tool development using a consensus approach. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for both the pilot and finalised versions of the tool. Results: The final trauma case review tool contained ten sections, including patient factors (such as pre-existing conditions), presenting problem, a timeline of events, factors contributing to the care delivery problem (including equipment, work environment, staff action, organizational factors), positive aspects of care and the outcome of panel discussion. After refinement, the inter-rater reliability of the human factors and outcome components of the tool improved with an average 86% agreement between raters. Discussion: This research developed an evidence-informed tool for use in paediatric trauma case review that considers both system safety and human factors to facilitate clinical review of trauma patient care. Conclusions: This tool can be used to identify opportunities for improvement in trauma care and guide quality assurance activities. Validation is required in the adult population.