Search

Purpose: Emergency gastrointestinal surgery is followed by a high risk of major complications and death. This study aimed to investigate which complications showed the strongest association with death following emergency surgery for gastrointestinal obstruction or perforation. Methods: We retrospectively included adults who had undergone emergency gastrointestinal surgery for radiologically verified obstruction or perforation at three Danish hospitals between 2014 and 2015. The exposure variables comprised 16 predefined Clavien-Dindo-graded complications. Cox regression with delayed entry was used to analyze the association of these complications with 90-day mortality. We adjusted for hospital, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, pre-operative Sepsis-2 score, cardiac comorbidity, renal comorbidity, hypertension, active cancer, bowel obstruction or perforation, and the surgical procedure. Subgroup analyses were done for patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or perforation. Results: Of the 349 included patients, 281 (80.5%) experienced at least one complication. The risk of death was 20.6% (14) for patients with no complications and varied between 21 and 57% for patients with complications. Renal impairment (hazard ratio (HR): 6.8 (95%CI: 3.7–12.4)), arterial thromboembolic events (HR 4.8 (2.3–9.9)), and atrial fibrillation (HR 4.4 (2.8–6.8)) showed the strongest association with 90-day mortality. Atrial fibrillation was the only complication significantly associated with death in patients with gastrointestinal obstruction as well as perforation. Conclusion: This study of patients undergoing emergency gastrointestinal surgery revealed that renal impairment, arterial thromboembolic events, and atrial fibrillation had the strongest association with death. Atrial fibrillation may serve as an in-situ marker of patients needing escalation of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore perspectives and wishes for patient and family centred care among adult patients and family-members with recent experience of admission to an adult intensive care unit. An explorative descriptive study using an inductive thematic analysis. Semi-structured interviews with adults (≥18 years) who had experienced admission ≥48 hours to an adult intensive care unit as a patient or family-member within the previous three months. Interview data were analysed used the six phases of thematic analysis, described by Braun and Clarke. Semi-structured interviews with adults (≥18 years) who had experienced admission ≥48 hours to an adult intensive care unit as a patient or family-member within the previous three months. Interview data were analysed used the six phases of thematic analysis, described by Braun and Clarke. Participants were recruited from six general (mixed surgical and medical) units in the Capital Region of Denmark. From fifteen interviews a total of 23 participants (8 patients and 15 family-members) described their perspectives and wishes for patient- and family-centred care. Three main themes were identified: 1) Ongoing dialogue is fundamental. Both scheduled and spontaneous information-sharing is important. 2) Humanizing. High-quality treatment was especially evident for participants when staff maintain a humanized attitude. 3) Equipping family to navigate. We found a range of specific suggestions of attention that may help patients and family-members to navigate during admission. We found that patients' and family-members' perspectives and wishes for PFCC centred around ongoing dialogue with staff and the importance of humanizing the ICU environment. Patients and family members needed to share and have their knowledge, concerns and perspectives brought forth and acknowledged by staff. Participants emphasized the pivotal role staff have in equipping patients and family-members to cope in the unit and supporting specifically family-members in fulfilling their role as advocates and supporters of the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess the evidence for the feasibility and effect of patient and familycentred care interventions provided in the intensive care unit, single or multicomponent, versus usual care, for reducing delirium, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in patients and family-members. A systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines and GRADE approach. A systematic literature search of relevant databases, screening and inclusion of studies, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias according to Cochrane methodology. The study is preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42020160768). Adult intensive care units. Nine randomised controlled trials enrolling a total of 1170 patients and 1226 family-members were included. We found moderate to low certainty evidence indicating no effect of patient and family centred care on delirium, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, in-hospital mortality, intensive care length of stay or family-members' anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. No studies looked at the effect of patient and family centred care on pain or cognitive function in patients. Evaluation of feasibility outcomes was scarce. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, mainly due to substantial risk of bias in individual studies and imprecision due to few events and small sample size. It remains uncertain whether patient and family centred care compared to usual care may reduce delirium in patients and psychological sequelae of intensive care admission in patients and families due to limited evidence of moderate to low certainty. Lack of systematic process evaluation of intervention feasibility as recommended by the Medical Research Council to identify barriers and facilitators of patient and family centred care in the adult intensive care unit context, further limits the conclusions that can be drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colonoscopy is essential for optimal management of inflammatory bowel disease. However, many patients opt out due to unpleasantness related to this procedure. We investigated if Nurse Administered Propofol Sedation (NAPS) would improve patient satisfaction and attitude towards future colonoscopies. Randomized clinical trial of deep sedation with NAPS (n = 63) versus moderate midazolam and fentanyl sedation (n = 67). To assess the primary end point of patient satisfaction at discharge, we developed a Satisfaction Questionnaire comprising 13 items each rated by a 5-point Likert scale and with higher scores reflecting more positive outcomes (13-65 points). Fifty-six patients (43%) with ulcerative colitis, 48 (37%) with Crohn's disease, and 26 (20%) with high suspicion of inflammatory bowel disease were included. Most (88%) had previously had a colonoscopy and pre-procedure expectations were similar between groups. Patients receiving deep sedation had significantly higher satisfaction score (mean 60.1, SD 3.4) than those receiving moderate sedation (51.2, 8.4; P <.001). This was driven especially by less pain, more amnesia, sedation more to their liking, and better experience with the current than previous sedations. Importantly, these patients significantly more often preferred the same sedation for a future colonoscopy and were also inclined to accept more frequent colonoscopies. Assistance from another colonoscopist and disruption of the procedure due to pain occurred significantly more frequent in the moderate sedation group. There were no safety signals associated with NAPS. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease favor deep propofol sedation over moderate midazolam and fentanyl sedation. Availability of NAPS may facilitate patient adherence to endoscopy-based monitoring programs. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01934088. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prioritising patients in mass casualty incidents (MCI) can be extremely difficult. Therefore, triage systems are important in every emergency medical service. This study reviews the accuracy of primary triage systems for MCI in trauma register studies.Methods: We registered a protocol at PROSPERO ID: CRD42018115438. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, Web of Science, Scopus, Clinical Trials, Google Scholar, and reference lists for eligible studies. We included studies that both examined a primary triage system for MCI in trauma registers and provided sensitivity and specificity for critically injured vs non-critically injured as results. We excluded studies that used paediatric, chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear MCIs populations or triage systems. Finally, we calculated intra-study relative sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio for each triage system.Results: Triage Sieve (TS) significantly underperformed in relative diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) when compared to START and CareFlight (CF) (START vs TS: 19.85 vs 13.23 (p<0.0001)│CF vs TS: 23.72 vs 12.83 (p<0.0001)). There was no significant difference in DOR between TS and Military Sieve (MS) (p<0.710). Compared to START, MS and CF TS had significantly higher relative specificity (START vs TS: 93.6% vs 96.1% (p=0.047)│CF vs TS: 96% vs 95.3% (p=0.0006)│MS vs TS: 94% vs 88.3% (p=0.0002)) and lower relative sensitivity (START vs TS: 57.8% vs 34.8% (p<0.0001)│CF vs TS: 53.9% vs 34.7% (p<0.0001)│MS vs TS: 51.9% vs 35.2% p<0.0001)). CF had significantly better relative DOR than START (CF vs START: 23.56 vs 27.79 (p=0.043)). MS had significantly better relative sensitivity than CF and START (MS vs CF: 49.5% vs 38.7% (p<0.0001)│MS vs START: 49.4% vs 43.9% (p=0.01)). In contrast, CF had significantly better relative specificity than MS (MS vs CF: 91.3% vs 93.3% (p<0.0001)). The remaining comparisons did not yield any significant differences.Conclusion: As the included studies were at risk of bias and had heterogenic characteristics, our results should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, our results point towards inferior accuracy of Triage Sieve compared to START and CareFlight, and less firmly point towards superior accuracy of Military Sieve compared to START, CareFlight and Triage Sieve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]