Search

Background: Although diarrhoea is a real source of morbidity for critically ill patients, this issue has been little studied, making it difficult to understand its mechanisms and management., Aims: We conducted a quality improvement study in an adult surgical intensive care unit before/after the implementation of a specific protocol to firstly improve diarrhoea management for patient benefit and secondly to understand the impact on caregivers., Study Design: The first part of this before/after study consisted in assessing the proportion of patients receiving an anti-diarrheal treatment before (phase I)/after (phase II) the implementation of the protocol. The second part of the study was to survey the caregivers on this topic., Results: Sixty four adults were included (33 in phase I; 31 in phase II) with 280 diarrheal episodes (129 in phase I; 151 in phase II). The proportion of patients who received at least one anti-diarrheal treatment was similar between the two phases (79% (26/33) vs. 68% (21/31), p = .40). Diarrhoea incidence was also similar (9% (33 patients/368 admissions) vs. 11% (31 patients/275 admissions), p = .35). The delay to initiate at least one treatment was significantly shorter in phase II (2 days [1-7] vs. 0 day [0-2]; p < .001). The patients' rehabilitation was no longer impacted by the occurrence of a diarrheal episode in phase II (39% (13/33) vs. 0% (0/31), p < .001). Eighty team members completed the surveys in phase I and 70 in phase II. Caregivers perceived diarrhoea like a burden and its economic impact remained high., Conclusions: The implementation of a protocol for the management of ICU diarrhoea did not increase the proportion of patients treated, but it did significantly improve the delay to initiate a treatment. The patients' rehabilitation was no longer affected by diarrhoea., Relevance to Clinical Practice: The use of specific anti-diarrhoea guidelines may help to reduce the burden of diarrhoea in an ICU., (© 2023 British Association of Critical Care Nurses.)

Background: Blended learning, which combines internet-based platform and lecturing, is used in anaesthesiology and critical care teaching. However, the benefits of this method remain unclear., Methods: We conducted a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised work between 2007 and 2014 to study the effect of blended learning on the results of first year anaesthesia and critical care residents in comparison with traditional teaching. Blended learning was implemented in Rouen University Hospital in 2011 and residents affiliated to this university corresponded as the blended learning group. The primary outcome was the resident's results as measured with multiple-choice questions between blended learning and control groups after beginning blended learning (post-interventional stage). The secondary outcomes included residents' results between pre and post-interventional stages and homework's time. Moreover, comparison between control and blended learning group before beginning blended learning (pre-interventional stage) was performed., Results: From 2007 to 2014, 308 residents were included. For the pre-interventional period, the mean score in the blended learning group (n=53) was 176 (CI 95% 163 to 188) whereas the mean score in the control group (n=106) was 167 (CI 95% 160 to 174) (no difference). For the post-interventional period, the mean score in blended learning group (n=54) was 232 on 300 (CI95% 227-237) whereas the mean score in the control group (n=95) is 215 (CI95% 209-220) (P<0.001). In the two groups, comparison between pre and post-interventional stages showed the increase of mean score, stronger for blended learning group (32% and 28% in blended learning and control group, P<0.05). The average time of homework in the blended learning group was 27h (CI 95% 18.2-35.8) and 10h in the control group (CI 95% 2-18) (P<0.05)., Conclusions: This work suggests the positive effect of blended learning (associating internet-based learning and flipped classroom) on the anaesthesia and critical care residents' knowledge by increasing their homework's time., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Introduction: Few studies have addressed the decision-making process of antibiotic therapy (AT) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients., Methods: In a prospective observational study, all consecutive patients admitted over a one-month period (2004) to 41 French surgical (n = 22) or medical/medico-surgical ICUs (n = 19) in 29 teaching university and 12 non-teaching hospitals were screened daily for AT until ICU discharge. We assessed the modalities of initiating AT, reasons for changes and factors associated with in ICU mortality including a specific analysis of a new AT administered on suspicion of a new infection., Results: A total of 1,043 patients (61% of the cohort) received antibiotics during their ICU stay. Thirty percent (509) of them received new AT mostly for suspected diagnosis of pneumonia (47%), bacteremia (24%), or intra-abdominal (21%) infections. New AT was prescribed on day shifts (45%) and out-of-hours (55%), mainly by a single senior physician (78%) or by a team decision (17%). This new AT was mainly started at the time of suspicion of infection (71%) and on the results of Gram-stained direct examination (21%). Susceptibility testing was performed in 261 (51%) patients with a new AT. This new AT was judged inappropriate in 58 of these 261 (22%) patients. In ICUs with written protocols for empiric AT (n = 25), new AT prescribed before the availability of culture results (P = 0.003) and out-of-hours (P = 0.04) was more frequently observed than in ICUs without protocols but the appropriateness of AT was not different. In multivariate analysis, the predictive factors of mortality for patients with new AT were absence of protocols for empiric AT (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.64, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.01 to 2.69), age ≥60 (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.19 to 3.26), SAPS II score >38 (OR = 2.78, 95% CI: 1.60 to 4.84), rapidly fatal underlying diseases (OR = 2.91, 95% CI: 1.52 to 5.56), SOFA score ≥6 (OR = 4.48, 95% CI: 2.46 to 8.18)., Conclusions: More than 60% of patients received AT during their ICU stay. Half of them received new AT, frequently initiated out-of-hours. In ICUs with written protocols, empiric AT was initiated more rapidly at the time of suspicion of infection and out-of-hours. These results encourage the establishment of local recommendations for empiric AT.