Search

Objective: To describe antibiotic treatment durations that pediatric infectious diseases (ID) and critical care clinicians usually recommend for bloodstream infections in critically ill children. Design: Anonymous, online practice survey using five common pediatric-based case scenarios of bloodstream infections. Setting: Pediatric intensive care units in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Participants: Pediatric intensivists, nurse practitioners, ID physicians and pharmacists. Main outcome measures: Recommended treatment durations for common infectious syndromes associated with bloodstream infections and willingness to enrol patients into a trial to study treatment duration. Results: Among 136 survey respondents, most recommended at least 10 days antibiotics for bloodstream infections associated with: pneumonia (65%), skin/soft tissue (74%), urinary tract (64%) and intra-abdominal infections (drained: 90%; undrained: 99%). For central vascular catheter-associated infections without catheter removal, over 90% clinicians recommended at least 10 days antibiotics, except for infections caused by coagulase negative staphylococci (79%). Recommendations for at least 10 days antibiotics were less common with catheter removal. In multivariable linear regression analyses, lack of source control was significantly associated with longer treatment durations (+5.2 days [95% CI: 4.4–6.1 days] for intra-abdominal infections and +4.1 days [95% CI: 3.8–4.4 days] for central vascular catheter-associated infections). Most clinicians (73–95%, depending on the source of bloodstream infection) would be willing to enrol patients into a trial of shorter versus longer antibiotic treatment duration. Conclusions: The majority of clinicians currently recommend at least 10 days of antibiotics for most scenarios of bloodstream infections in critically ill children. There is practice heterogeneity in self-reported treatment duration recommendations among clinicians. Treatment durations were similar across different infectious syndromes. Under appropriate clinical conditions, most clinicians would be willing to enrol patients into a trial of shorter versus longer treatment for common syndromes associated with bloodstream infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Strained intensive care unit (ICU) capacity represents a supply-demand mismatch in ICU care. Limited data have explored health care worker (HCW) perceptions of strain. Methods: Cross-sectional survey of HCW across 16 Alberta ICUs. A web-based questionnaire captured data on demographics, strain definition, and sources, impact and strategies for management. Results: 658 HCW responded (33%; 95%CI, 32–36%), of which 452 were nurses (69%), 128 allied health (19%), 45 physicians (7%) and 33 administrators (5%). Participants (agreed/strongly agreed: 94%) reported that strain was best defined as “a time-varying imbalance between the supply of available beds, staff and/or resources and the demand to provide high-quality care for patients who may become or who are critically ill”; while some recommended defining “high-quality care”, integrating “safety”, and families in the definition. Participants reported significant contributors to strain were: “inability to discharge ICU patients due to lack of available ward beds” (97%); “increases in the volume” (89%); and “acuity and complexity of patients requiring ICU support” (88%). Strain was perceived to “increase stress levels in health care providers” (98%); and “burnout in health care providers” (96%). The highest ranked strategies were: “have more consistent and better goals-of-care conversations with patients/families outside of ICU” (95%); and “increase non-acute care beds” (92%). Interpretation: Strain is perceived as common. HCW believe precipitants represent a mix of patient-related and operational factors. Strain is thought to have negative implications for quality of care, HCW well-being and workplace environment. Most indicated strategies “outside” of ICU settings were priorities for managing strain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Team SA involves a common perspective between two or more individuals regarding current environmental events, their meaning, and projected future status. Team SA has been theorized to be important for resuscitation team effectiveness. Accordingly, multidimensional frameworks of observable behaviors relevant to resuscitation teams are needed to understand more deeply the nature of team SA, its implications for team effectiveness, and whether it can be trained. A seven-dimension team resuscitation SA framework was developed following a literature review and consensus process using a modified Delphi approach with a group of content experts. We applied a pre-post design within a day-long team training program involving four video-recorded simulated resuscitation events and 42 teams across Canada. The first and fourth events represented “pre” and “post” training events, respectively. Teams were scored on SA five times within each 15-minute event. Distractions were introduced to investigate whether SA scores would be affected. The current study provides initial construct validity evidence for a new measure of SA and explicates SA's role in resuscitation teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Team SA involves a common perspective between two or more individuals regarding current environmental events, their meaning, and projected future status. Team SA has been theorized to be important for resuscitation team effectiveness. Accordingly, multidimensional frameworks of observable behaviors relevant to resuscitation teams are needed to understand more deeply the nature of team SA, its implications for team effectiveness, and whether it can be trained. A seven-dimension team resuscitation SA framework was developed following a literature review and consensus process using a modified Delphi approach with a group of content experts. We applied a pre-post design within a day-long team training program involving four video-recorded simulated resuscitation events and 42 teams across Canada. The first and fourth events represented "pre" and "post" training events, respectively. Teams were scored on SA five times within each 15-minute event. Distractions were introduced to investigate whether SA scores would be affected. The current study provides initial construct validity evidence for a new measure of SA and explicates SA's role in resuscitation teams.