Search

Background We examined whether a context and process-sensitive ‘intelligent' checklist increases compliance with best practice compared with a paper checklist during intensive care ward rounds. Methods We conducted a single-centre prospective before-and-after mixed-method trial in a 35 bed medical and surgical ICU. Daily ICU ward rounds were observed during two periods of 8 weeks. We compared paper checklists (control) with a dynamic (digital) clinical checklist (DCC, intervention). The primary outcome was compliance with best clinical practice, measured as the percentages of checked items and unchecked critical items. Secondary outcomes included ICU stay and the usability of digital checklists. Data are presented as median (interquartile range). Results Clinical characteristics and severity of critical illness were similar during both control and intervention periods of study. A total of 36 clinicians visited 197 patients during 352 ward rounds using the paper checklist, compared with 211 patients during 366 ward rounds using the DCC. Per ICU round, a median of 100% of items (94.4–100.0) were completed by DCC, compared with 75.1% (66.7–86.4) by paper checklist (P=0.03). No critical items remained unchecked by the DCC, compared with 15.4% (8.3–27.3) by the paper checklist (P=0.01). The DCC was associated with reduced ICU stay (1 day [1–3]), compared with the paper checklist (2 days [1–4]; P=0.05). Usability of the DCC was judged by clinicians to require further improvement. Conclusions A digital checklist improved compliance with best clinical practice, compared with a paper checklist, during ward rounds on a mixed ICU. Clinical trial registration NCT 03599856.

A system to provide surveillance, diagnosis, and protocolized management of surgical intensive care unit (SICU) sepsis was undertaken as a performance improvement project. A system for sepsis management was implemented for SICU patients using paper followed by a computerized system. The hypothesis was that the computerized system would be associated with improved process and outcomes.A system was designed to provide early recognition and guide patient-specific management of sepsis including (1) modified early warning signs-sepsis recognition score (MEWS-SRS; summative point score of ranges of vital signs, mental status, white blood cell count; after every 4 hours) by bedside nurse; (2) suspected site assessment (vascular access, lung, abdomen, urinary tract, soft tissue, other) at bedside by physician or extender; (3) sepsis management protocol (replicable, point-of-care decisions) at bedside by nurse, physician, and extender. The system was implemented first using paper and then a computerized system. Sepsis severity was defined using standard criteria.In January to May 2012, a paper system was used to manage 77 consecutive sepsis encounters (3.9 ± 0.5 cases per week) in 65 patients (77% male; age, 53 ± 2 years). In June to December 2012, a computerized system was used to manage 132 consecutive sepsis encounters (4.4 ± 0.4 cases per week) in 119 patients (63% male; age, 58 ± 2 years). MEWS-SRS elicited 683 site assessments, and 201 had sepsis diagnosis and protocol management. The predominant site of infection was abdomen (paper, 58%; computer, 53%). Recognition of early sepsis tended to occur more using the computerized system (paper, 23%; computer, 35%). Hospital mortality rate for surgical ICU sepsis (paper, 20%; computer, 14%) was less with the computerized system.A computerized sepsis management system improves care process and outcome. Early sepsis is recognized and managed with greater frequency compared with severe sepsis or septic shock. The system has a beneficial effect as a clinical standard of care for SICU patients.Therapeutic study, level III.

To compare the accuracy of litmus paper-determined gastric pH to a nasogastric graphite antimony pH probe.A prospective clinical trial of gastric pH determination in patients enrolled in a study of histamine-2-receptor (H2) antagonists.The medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a 450-bed county hospital.Critically ill ICU patients requiring stress ulcer prophylaxis.Using a crossover design, the patients were randomized to initially receive an H2 antagonist by continuous infusion or intravenous bolus, and subsequently were crossed over to the other limb of the study.Gastric pH was determined using pH-sensitive litmus paper at the initiation of each limb of the study and at 1, 2, 4, and 8 hrs after the initiation of H2 receptor antagonist therapy. In addition, gastric pH was continuously determined over the same time period utilizing a graphite antimony pH probe. Gastric pH measurements determined with litmus paper and intragastric pH probes demonstrated an excellent correlation (r2 = .93, p.001). McNemar's test of correlated proportions could not demonstrate a significant difference between the two monitoring methods (chi-square = 0.5, p.47), and the kappa statistic (0.95, p.001) demonstrated excellent concordance. Bias measurement was 0.01 (95% confidence interval = -0.155 to 0.176).Measurement of intragastric pH, using pH-sensitive litmus paper, is both sensitive and specific when utilizing a graphite antimony nasogastric pH probe as a reference standard. Litmus paper-determined gastric pH testing is both easy to perform and inexpensive. Therefore, based on the current data, we believe this technique (i.e., litmus paper determined gastric pH testing) to be the method of choice for determination of intragastric pH in patients at risk for stress gastric ulcers in the medical ICU.

The testing of gastric pH in the ICU has become the standard of care for most critically ill patients. It has been demonstrated that maintaining a gastric pH of greater than 3.5 confers protection from upper GI bleeding, while lesser pH values subject the patient to hemorrhagic risk. We compared nasogastric pH, as measured by pH electrode, to color-scaled pH paper in 16 critically ill patients hospitalized 3 to 10 days in the surgical ICU. Statistical analysis of 370 gastric specimens revealed a sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 94.5% when a paper pH (pH[p]) of greater than or equal to 4 was used as the therapeutic end-point. The sensitivity and specificity of the same pH(p) for clear buffered solutions were 100%. We conclude that the use of pH(p) lacks the clinical accuracy for determining the effects of therapy for the prophylaxis of stress gastritis and will lead to a significant degree of undertreatment. This lack of accuracy is not due to observer error or the quality or age of the testing paper. Our results suggest that if the measurement of gastric pH by pH(p) analysis is to be used as a guide for the prevention of stress-related hemorrhage, a more accurate method of monitoring may be warranted.

Objective: To survey the current clinical treatment of refractory status epilepticus and to identify steps in its management which may need further investigation. Methods: Epileptologists and critical care neurologists were surveyed using a standardised postal questionnaire. Results: Sixty three of 91 participants (69%) returned the questionnaires. Two thirds of the respondents applied another non-anaesthetising anticonvulsant after failure of first line drugs. General anaesthesia for ongoing complex partial status epilepticus (CPSE) was part of the therapeutic regimen of 75% of the interviewees. A non-barbiturate as general anaesthetic of first choice was used by 42%. Up to 70% titrated the anaesthetic to achieve a burst suppression pattern in the electroencephalogram, indicating deep sedation, and 94% reduce anaesthesia within 48 hours. Conclusions: The management of refractory status epilepticus is heterogeneous in many aspects, even among clinicians who are most familiar with this severe condition. Randomised trials are needed to compare the efficacy, side effects, optimal duration, and depth of general anaesthesia.