Search

Objective: Effective communication between clinicians is essential for seamless discharge of patients between care settings. Yet, discharge summaries are commonly not available and incomplete. We implemented and evaluated a structured electronic health record-embedded electronic discharge (eDischarge) summary tool for patients discharged from the ICU to a hospital ward.Design: Multiple baseline trial with randomized and staggered implementation.Setting: Adult medical-surgical ICUs at four acute care hospitals serving a single Canadian city.Patients: Health records of patients 18 years old or older, in the ICU 24 hours or longer, and discharged from the ICU to an in-hospital patient ward between February 12, 2018, and June 30, 2019.Intervention: A structured electronic note (ICU eDischarge tool) with predefined fields (e.g., diagnosis) embedded in the hospital-wide electronic health information system.Measurements and Main Results: We compared the percent of timely (available at discharge) and complete (included goals of care designation, diagnosis, list of active issues, active medications) discharge summaries pre and post implementation using mixed effects logistic regression models. After implementing the ICU eDischarge tool, there was an immediate and sustained increase in the proportion of patients discharged from ICU with timely and complete discharge summaries from 10.8% (preimplementation period) to 71.1% (postimplementation period) (adjusted odds ratio, 32.43; 95% CI, 18.22-57.73). No significant changes were observed in rapid response activation, cardiopulmonary arrest, death in hospital, ICU readmission, and hospital length of stay following ICU discharge. Preventable (60.1 vs 5.7 per 1,000 d; p = 0.023), but not nonpreventable (27.3 vs 40.2 per 1,000d; p = 0.54), adverse events decreased post implementation. Clinicians perceived the eDischarge tool to produce a higher quality discharge process.Conclusions: Implementation of an electronic tool was associated with more timely and complete discharge summaries for patients discharged from the ICU to a hospital ward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Many healthcare workers are concerned about the provision of nonbeneficial treatment in the acute care setting. We sought to explore the perceptions of acute care practitioners to determine whether they perceived nonbeneficial treatment to be a problem, to generate an acceptable definition of nonbeneficial treatment, to learn about their perceptions of the impact and causes of nonbeneficial treatment, and the ways that they feel could reduce or resolve nonbeneficial treatment. Design: National, bilingual, cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of nursing and medical staff who provide direct patient care in acute medical wards or ICUs in Canada. Main Results: We received 688 responses (response rate 61%) from 11 sites. Seventy-four percent of respondents were nurses. Eighty-two percent of respondents believe that our current means of resolving nonbeneficial treatment are inadequate. The most acceptable definitions of nonbeneficial treatment were "advanced curative/life-prolonging treatments that would almost certainly result in a quality of life that the patient has previously stated that he/she would not want" (88% agreement) and "advanced curative/ life-prolonging treatments that are not consistent with the goals of care (as indicated by the patient)" (83% agreement). Respondents most commonly believed that nonbeneficial treatment was caused by substitute decision makers who do not understand the limitations of treatment, or who cannot accept a poor prognosis (90% agreement for each cause), and 52% believed that nonbeneficial treatment was "often" or "always" continued until the patient died or was discharged from hospital. Respondents believed that nonbeneficial treatment was a common problem with a negative impact on all stakeholders (> 80%) and perceived that improved advance care planning and communication training would be the most effective (92% and 88%, respectively) and morally acceptable (95% and 92%, respectively) means to resolve the problem of nonbeneficial treatment. Conclusions: Canadian nurses and physicians perceive that our current means of resolving nonbeneficial treatment are inadequate, and that we need to adopt new techniques of resolving nonbeneficial treatment. The most promising strategies to reduce nonbeneficial treatment are felt to be improved advance care planning and communication training for healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The optimum duration of antimicrobial treatment for patients with bacteremia is unknown. Our objectives were to determine duration of antimicrobial treatment provided to patients who have bacteremia in ICUs, to assess pathogen/patient factors related to treatment duration, and to assess the relationship between treatment duration and survival.Design: Retrospective cohort study.Settings: Fourteen ICUs across Canada.Patients: Patients with bacteremia and were present in the ICU at the time culture reported positive.Interventions: Duration of antimicrobial treatment for patients who had bacteremia in ICU.Measurements and Main Results: Among 1,202 ICU patients with bacteremia, the median duration of treatment was 14 days, but with wide variability (interquartile range, 9-17.5). Most patient characteristics were not associated with treatment duration. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the only pathogens associated with shorter treatment (odds ratio, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.51-5.26). The urinary tract was the only source of infection associated with a trend toward lower likelihood of shorter treatment (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08); an unknown source of infection was associated with a greater likelihood of shorter treatment (odds ratio, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.17-3.91). The association of treatment duration and survival was unstable when analyzed based on timing of death.Conclusions: Critically ill patients who have bacteremia typically receive long courses of antimicrobials. Most patient/pathogen characteristics are not associated with treatment duration; survivor bias precludes a valid assessment of the association between treatment duration and survival. A definitive randomized controlled trial is needed to compare shorter versus longer antimicrobial treatment in patients who have bacteremia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Overnight physician staffing in the ICU has been recommended by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Leapfrog Consortium. We conducted a survey to review practice in the current era and to compare this with results from a 2006 survey., Design: Cross-sectional survey., Setting: Canadian adult ICUs., Participants: ICU directors., Interventions: None., Measurement and Main Results: A 29-question survey was sent to ICU directors describing overnight staffing by residents, fellows, nurse practitioners, and staff physicians, as well as duty duration, clinical responsibilities, and unit characteristics. We established contact with 122 ICU directors, of whom 107 (88%) responded. Of the 107 units, 60 (56%) had overnight in-house physicians. Compared with ICUs without overnight in-house physician coverage, ICUs with in-house physicians were in larger hospitals (p < 0.0001), had more beds (p < 0.0001), had more ventilated patients (p < 0.0001), and had more admissions (p < 0.0001). Overnight in-house physicians were first year residents (R1) in 20 of 60 (33%), second to fifth year residents (R2-R5) in 46 of 60 (77%), and Critical Care Medicine trainees in 19 of 60 (32%). Advanced practice nurses provided overnight coverage in four of 107 ICUs (4%). The most senior in-house physician was a staff physician in 12 of 60 ICUs (20%), a Critical Care Medicine trainee in 14 of 60 (23%), and a resident (R2-R5) in 20 of 60 (33%). The duration of overnight duty was on average 20-24 hours in 22 of 46 units (48%) with R2-R5 residents and 14 of 19 units (74%) covered by Critical Care Medicine trainees., Conclusions: Variability of in-house overnight physician presence in Canadian adult ICUs is linked to therapeutic complexity and unit characteristics and has not changed significantly over the decade since our 2006 survey. Additional evidence about patient and resident outcomes would better inform decisions to revise physician scheduling in Canadian ICUs.

Objectives: To examine adverse events and associated factors and outcomes during transition from ICU to hospital ward (after ICU discharge)., Design: Multicenter cohort study., Setting: Ten adult medical-surgical Canadian ICUs., Patients: Patients were those admitted to one of the 10 ICUs from July 2014 to January 2016., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Two ICU physicians independently reviewed progress and consultation notes documented in the medical record within 7 days of patient's ICU discharge date to identify and classify adverse events. The adverse event data were linked to patient characteristics and ICU and ward physician surveys collected during the larger prospective cohort study. Analyses were conducted using multivariable logistic regression. Of the 451 patients included in the study, 84 (19%) experienced an adverse event, the majority (62%) within 3 days of transfer from ICU to hospital ward. Most adverse events resulted only in symptoms (77%) and 36% were judged to be preventable. Patients with adverse events were more likely to be readmitted to the ICU (odds ratio, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.4-13.0), have a longer hospital stay (mean difference, 16.1 d; 95% CI, 8.4-23.7) or die in hospital (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.8-11.8) than those without an adverse event. ICU and ward physician predictions at the time of ICU discharge had low sensitivity and specificity for predicting adverse events, ICU readmissions, and hospital death., Conclusions: Adverse events are common after ICU discharge to hospital ward and are associated with ICU readmission, increased hospital length of stay and death and are not predicted by ICU or ward physicians.

Objectives: Guidelines recommend offering family members of critically ill patients the option to attend interdisciplinary team rounds as a way to improve communication and satisfaction. Uncertainty remains around the benefits and risks., Design: We conducted an observational study to describe family participation in ICU rounds and its association with rounding processes., Setting: Rounds conducted under the leadership of 33 attending physicians in seven hospitals across three Canadian cities., Patients: Three hundred two individual rounds on 210 unique patients were observed., Interventions: Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using standardized observational tools., Measurements and Main Results: Among the 302 rounds observed, family attended in 68 rounds (23%), were present in ICU but did not attend in 59 rounds (20%), and were absent from the ICU in 175 rounds (58%). The median duration of rounds respectively for these three groups of patients was 20 minutes (interquartile range, 14-26 min), 16 minutes (interquartile range, 13-22 min), and 16 minutes (interquartile range, 10-23 min) (p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in prognostic discussions (35% vs 36% vs 36%; p = 0.99) or bedside teaching (35% vs 37% vs 34%; p = 0.88). The quality of rounds was not significantly associated with family attendance in rounds or presence in the ICU (quality score [1 (low) to 10 (high)] median 8 [interquartile range, 7-8] vs 7 [interquartile range, 6-9] vs 7 [interquartile range, 6-9]; p = 0.11). Qualitative analyses suggested that family attendance may influence relationship building, information gathering, patient and family education, team dynamics, future family meetings, workflow, and shared clinical decision-making., Conclusions: Our results suggest family attendance in ICU rounds is associated with longer duration of rounds, but not the frequency of trainee teaching, discussions of prognosis, or quality of rounds. Family attendance in rounds may enhance communication and complement family conferences.

Objective: To describe the occurrence of recurrent clinical deterioration and repeat medical emergency team activation and assess its effect on processes and outcomes of care., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Two community hospitals and two tertiary care hospitals, Alberta, Canada., Patients: Consecutive hospitalized adult patients with sudden clinical deterioration and medical emergency team activation without admission to ICU., Intervention: None., Measurement and Main Results: We compared ICU admission rates (admissions > 2 hr following index medical emergency team), hospital length of stay, and hospital mortality for a cohort of 3,200 patients with and without recurrent clinical deterioration following medical emergency team activation adjusting for patient, provider, and hospital characteristics.The cohort consisted of 3,200 patients. Ten percent of patients (n = 337) experienced recurrent clinical deterioration and repeat medical emergency team activation during their hospital stay. Patients more likely to experience recurrent clinical deterioration and repeat medical emergency team activation included those with chronic liver disease (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.14-2.69) or who received airway suctioning (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.23-2.25), noninvasive mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.94-2.94), or central IV catheter insertion (odds ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.02-3.21) during the index medical emergency team activation. Patients with recurrent clinical deterioration were more likely than patients without recurrent clinical deterioration to be subsequently admitted to ICU (43% vs 13%; odds ratio, 6.11; 95% CI, 4.67-8.00; p < 0.01), to have longer lengths of hospital stay (median, 31 d vs 13 d; p < 0.01), and to die during their hospital stay (34% vs 23%; odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.47-2.67; p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Recurrent clinical deterioration and repeat medical emergency team activation are common and associated with increased risk of subsequent ICU admission, increased length of hospital stay, and increased hospital mortality. It may be possible to identify patients at risk of recurrent clinical deterioration following medical emergency team activation and target interventions to improve patient care.