Search

Background: Situation‐Background‐Assessment‐Recommendation (SBAR) is a tool for structuring communication between healthcare professionals. SBAR reduces medical errors, however few studies have evaluated its quality in real practice. Aims: To describe the quality of SBAR utilization by intensive care unit (ICU) nurses during phone conversations with physicians. To assess the influence of nurses' training, professional experience, and call circumstances on this quality. Study Design: This observational study was conducted in the adult ICU of a university hospital in French speaking Switzerland. All consecutive telephone calls from nurses to physicians during a calendar month, were recorded. Those related to a change in patients' clinical status were selected and analysed. The quality of SBAR utilization was assessed using a pre‐defined analysis grid. Scores ranged from 0 (worst quality) to 100% (best quality). Nurses' sociodemographics and training record were collected. Multiple regression was used to assess determinants of SBAR quality including nurses characteristics and level of training. Results: We analysed 290 phone calls, made by 99 nurses. The median SBAR quality score was 41% (interquartile range [IQR] 33–48). Quality scores varied across the four items of SBAR: Situation 88% (81–94), Background 17% (6–27), Assessment 17% (0–33), and Recommendation 33% (17–40). Factors independently associated with higher SBAR quality were age (−0.66%, p =.002, 95% CI [−1.07; −0.25]), primary language other than French (−8.40%, p =.017, 95% CI [−15.29; −1.51]), lack of ICU expertise (−9.25%, p =.013, 95% CI [−16.5;1–1.99]), and SBAR training in pre‐graduate nursing education (+11.53%, p =.028, 95% CI [1.27; 22.79]). Conclusions: The quality of SBAR utilization remains low in ICU clinical practice. Pre‐ and post‐graduate training seem to improve its quality. Relevance to Clinical Practice: Pre‐graduate mandatory training associated with multiple repetitions could improve nurses' SBAR utilization. Training using the SBAR tool should be combined with the development of nursing skills in assessment and clinical judgment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about metabolic and nutrition characteristics of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and persistent critical illness. We aimed to compare those characteristics in patients with PCI and COVID‐19 and patients without COVID‐19 infection (non‐CO)—primarily, their energy balance. Methods: This is a prospective observational study including two consecutive cohorts, defined as needing intubation for >10 days. We collected demographic data, severity scores, nutrition variables, length of stay, and mortality. Results: Altogether, 104 patients (52 per group) were included (59 ± 14 years old [mean ± SD], 75% men) between July 2019 and May 2020. SAPSII, Nutrition Risk Screening (NRS) score, proportion of obese patients, duration of intubation (18.2 ± 11.7 days), and mortality rates were similar. Patients with COVID‐19 (vs non‐CO) had lower SOFA scores (P = 0.013) and more frequently needed prone position (P < 0.0001) and neuromuscular blockade (P < 0.0001): lengths of ICU (P = 0.03) and hospital stays were shorter (P < 0.0001). Prescribed energy targets were below those of the ICU protocol. The energy balance of patients with COVID‐19 was significantly more negative after day 10. Enteral nutrition (EN) started earlier (P < 0.0001). During the first 10 days, COVID‐19 patients received more lipid (propofol sedation) and less protein. Higher admission C‐reactive protein (P = 0.002) decreased faster (P < 0.001). Whereas intestinal function was characterized by constipation in both groups during the first 10 days, diarrhea was less common in patients with COVID‐19 thereafter. Conclusion: Compared with non‐CO patients, COVID‐19 patients were not more obese, had lower SOFA scores, and were fed more rapidly with EN, because of a more normal gastrointestinal function possibly due to fewer non–respiratory organ failures: their energy balances were more negative after the first 10 days. Propofol sedation reduced protein delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]