Search

Introduction Neurocritical care focuses on the care of critically ill patients with an acute neurologic disorder and has grown significantly in the past few years. However, there is a lack of data that describe the scope of practice of neurointensivists and epidemiological data on the types of patients and treatments used in neurocritical care units worldwide. To address these issues, we designed a multicenter, international, point-prevalence, cross-sectional, prospective, observational, non-interventional study in the setting of neurocritical care (PRINCE Study). Methods In this manuscript, we analyzed data from the initial phase of the study that included registration, hospital, and intensive care unit (ICU) organizations. We present here descriptive statistics to summarize data from the registration case report form. We performed the Kruskal–Wallis test followed by the Dunn procedure to test for differences in practices among world regions. Results We analyzed information submitted by 257 participating sites from 47 countries. The majority of those sites, 119 (46.3%), were in North America, 44 (17.2%) in Europe, 34 (13.3%) in Asia, 9 (3.5%) in the Middle East, 34 (13.3%) in Latin America, and 14 (5.5%) in Oceania. Most ICUs are from academic institutions (73.4%) located in large urban centers (44% > 1 million inhabitants). We found significant differences in hospital and ICU organization, resource allocation, and use of patient management protocols. The highest nursing/patient ratio was in Oceania (100% 1:1). Dedicated Advanced Practiced Providers are mostly present in North America (73.7%) and are uncommon in Oceania (7.7%) and the Middle East (0%). The presence of dedicated respiratory therapist is common in North America (85%), Middle East (85%), and Latin America (84%) but less common in Europe (26%) and Oceania (7.7%). The presence of dedicated pharmacist is highest in North America (89%) and Oceania (85%) and least common in Latin America (38%). The majority of respondents reported having a dedicated neuro-ICU (67% overall; highest in North America: 82%; and lowest in Oceania: 14%). Conclusion The PRINCE Study results suggest that there is significant variability in the delivery of neurocritical care. The study also shows it is feasible to undertake international collaborations to gather global data about the practice of neurocritical care. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12028-019-00750-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Contains fulltext : 218566pub.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) Contains fulltext : 218566pos.pdf (Author’s version postprint ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Neurocritical care is devoted to the care of critically ill patients with acute neurological or neurosurgical emergencies. There is limited information regarding epidemiological data, disease characteristics, variability of clinical care, and in-hospital mortality of neurocritically ill patients worldwide. We addressed these issues in the Point PRevalence In Neurocritical CarE (PRINCE) study, a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study. METHODS: We recruited patients from various intensive care units (ICUs) admitted on a pre-specified date, and the investigators recorded specific clinical care activities they performed on the subjects during their first 7 days of admission or discharge (whichever came first) from their ICUs and at hospital discharge. In this manuscript, we analyzed the final data set of the study that included patient admission characteristics, disease type and severity, ICU resources, ICU and hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. We present descriptive statistics to summarize data from the case report form. We tested differences between geographically grouped data using parametric and nonparametric testing as appropriate. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate factors associated with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 1545 patients admitted to 147 participating sites from 31 countries of which most were from North America (69%, N = 1063). Globally, there was variability in patient characteristics, admission diagnosis, ICU treatment team and resource allocation, and in-hospital mortality. Seventy-three percent of the participating centers were academic, and the most common admitting diagnosis was subarachnoid hemorrhage (13%). The majority of patients were male (59%), a half of whom had at least two comorbidities, and median Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 13. Factors associated with in-hospital mortality included age (OR 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.04); lower GCS (OR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.16 for every point reduction in GCS); pupillary reactivity (OR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.23 for bilateral unreactive pupils); admission source (emergency room versus direct admission [OR 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.75]; admission from a general ward versus direct admission [OR 5.85; 95% CI, 2.75 to 12.45; and admission from another ICU versus direct admission [OR 3.34; 95% CI, 1.27 to 8.8]); and the absence of a dedicated neurocritical care unit (NCCU) (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.47). CONCLUSION: PRINCE is the first study to evaluate care patterns of neurocritical patients worldwide. The data suggest that there is a wide variability in clinical care resources and patient characteristics. Neurological severity of illness and the absence of a dedicated NCCU are independent predictors of in-patient mortality.

Inflammation is an important part of the normal physiologic response to acute brain injury (ABI). How inflammation is manifest determines if it augments or hinders the resolution of ABI. Monitoring body temperature, the cellular arm of the inflammatory cascade, and inflammatory proteins may help guide therapy. This summary will address the utility of inflammation monitoring in brain-injured adults. An electronic literature search was conducted for English language articles describing the testing, utility, and optimal methods to measure inflammation in ABI. Ninety-four articles were included in this review. Current evidence suggests that control of inflammation after ABI may hold promise for advances in good outcomes. However, our understanding of how much inflammation is good and how much is deleterious is not yet clear. Several important concepts emerge form our review. First, while continuous temperature monitoring of core body temperature is recommended, temperature pattern alone is not useful in distinguishing infectious from noninfectious fever. Second, when targeted temperature management is used, shivering should be monitored at least hourly. Finally, white blood cell levels and protein markers of inflammation may have a limited role in distinguishing infectious from noninfectious fever. Our understanding of optimal use of inflammation monitoring after ABI is limited currently but is an area of active investigation.

The effect of intracranial pressure (ICP) and the role of ICP monitoring are best studied in traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, a variety of acute neurologic illnesses e.g., subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, meningitis/encephalitis, and select metabolic disorders, e.g., liver failure and malignant, brain tumors can affect ICP. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature about ICP monitoring in conditions other than TBI and to provide recommendations how the technique may be used in patient management. A PubMed search between 1980 and September 2013 identified 989 articles; 225 of which were reviewed in detail. The technique used to monitor ICP in non-TBI conditions is similar to that used in TBI; however, indications for ICP monitoring often are intertwined with the presence of obstructive hydrocephalus and hence the use of ventricular catheters is more frequent. Increased ICP can adversely affect outcome, particularly when it fails to respond to treatment. However, patients with elevated ICP can still have favorable outcomes. Although the influence of ICP-based care on outcome in non-TBI conditions appears less robust than in TBI, monitoring ICP and cerebral perfusion pressure can play a role in guiding therapy in select patients.

There is an increased focus on evaluating processes of care, particularly in the high acuity and cost environment of intensive care. Evaluation of neurocritical-specific care and evidence-based protocol implementation are needed to effectively determine optimal processes of care and effect on patient outcomes. General quality measures to evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) processes of care have been proposed; however, applicability of these measures in neurocritical care populations has not been established. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for English language articles from 1990 to August 2013. A total of 1,061 articles were reviewed, with 145 meeting criteria for inclusion in this review. Care in specialized neurocritical care units or by neurocritical teams can have a positive impact on mortality, length of stay, and in some cases, functional outcome. Similarly, implementation of evidence-based protocol-directed care can enhance outcome in the neurocritical care population. There is significant evidence to support suggested quality indicators for the general ICU population, but limited research regarding specific use in neurocritical care. Quality indices for neurocritical care have been proposed; however, additional research is needed to further validate measures.

The metabolic response to injury is well described; however, very little is understood about optimal markers to measure this response. This summary will address the current evidence about monitoring nutritional status including blood glucose after acute brain injury (ABI). An electronic literature search was conducted for English language articles describing the testing, utility, and optimal methods to measure nutritional status and blood glucose levels in the neurocritical care population. A total of 45 articles were included in this review. Providing adequate and timely nutritional support can help improve outcome after ABI. However, the optimal content and total nutrition requirements remain unclear. In addition, how best to monitor the nutritional status in ABI is still being elucidated, and at present, there is no validated optimal method to monitor the global response to nutritional support on a day-to-day basis in ABI patients. Nitrogen balance may be monitored to assess the adequacy of caloric intake as it relates to protein energy metabolism, but indirect calorimetry, anthropometric measurement, or serum biomarker requires further validation. The adverse effects of hyperglycemia in ABI are well described, and data indicate that blood glucose should be carefully controlled in critically ill patients. However, the optimal frequency or duration for blood glucose monitoring after ABI remains poorly defined. There are significant knowledge gaps about monitoring nutritional status and response to nutritional interventions in ABI; these need to be addressed and hence few recommendations can be made. The optimal frequency and duration of blood glucose monitoring need further study.

The goal of multimodality neuromonitoring is to provide continuous, real-time assessment of brain physiology to prevent, detect, and attenuate secondary brain injury. Clinical informatics deals with biomedical data, information, and knowledge including their acquisition, storage, retrieval, and optimal use for clinical decision-making. An electronic literature search was conducted for English language articles describing the use of informatics in the intensive care unit setting from January 1990 to August 2013. A total of 64 studies were included in this review. Clinical informatics infrastructure should be adopted that enables a wide range of linear and nonlinear analytical methods be applied to patient data. Specific time epochs of clinical interest should be reviewable. Analysis strategies of monitor alarms may help address alarm fatigue. Ergonomic data display that present results from analyses with clinical information in a sensible uncomplicated manner improve clinical decision-making. Collecting and archiving the highest resolution physiologic and phenotypic data in a comprehensive open format data warehouse is a crucial first step toward information management and two-way translational research for multimodality monitoring. The infrastructure required is largely the same as that needed for telemedicine intensive care applications, which under the right circumstances improves care quality while reducing cost.

To determine the optimal use and indications of electroencephalography (EEG) in critical care management of acute brain injury (ABI). An electronic literature search was conducted for articles in English describing electrophysiological monitoring in ABI from January 1990 to August 2013. A total of 165 studies were included. EEG is a useful monitor for seizure and ischemia detection. There is a well-described role for EEG in convulsive status epilepticus and cardiac arrest (CA). Data suggest EEG should be considered in all patients with ABI and unexplained and persistent altered consciousness and in comatose intensive care unit (ICU) patients without an acute primary brain condition who have an unexplained impairment of mental status. There remain uncertainties about certain technical details, e.g., the minimum duration of EEG studies, the montage, and electrodes. Data obtained from both EEG and EP studies may help estimate prognosis in ABI patients, particularly following CA and traumatic brain injury. Data supporting these recommendations is sparse, and high quality studies are needed. EEG is used to monitor and detect seizures and ischemia in ICU patients and indications for EEG are clear for certain disease states, however, uncertainty remains on other applications.

Maintenance of adequate oxygenation is a mainstay of intensive care, however, recommendations on the safety, accuracy, and the potential clinical utility of invasive and non-invasive tools to monitor brain and systemic oxygenation in neurocritical care are lacking. A literature search was conducted for English language articles describing bedside brain and systemic oxygen monitoring in neurocritical care patients from 1980 to August 2013. Imaging techniques e.g., PET are not considered. A total of 281 studies were included, the majority described patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). All tools for oxygen monitoring are safe. Parenchymal brain oxygen (PbtO2) monitoring is accurate to detect brain hypoxia, and it is recommended to titrate individual targets of cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), ventilator parameters (PaCO2, PaO2), and transfusion, and to manage intracranial hypertension, in combination with ICP monitoring. SjvO2 is less accurate than PbtO2. Given limited data, NIRS is not recommended at present for adult patients who require neurocritical care. Systemic monitoring of oxygen (PaO2, SaO2, SpO2) and CO2 (PaCO2, end-tidal CO2) is recommended in patients who require neurocritical care.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. In large part critical care for TBI is focused on the identification and management of secondary brain injury. This requires effective neuromonitoring that traditionally has centered on intracranial pressure (ICP). The purpose of this paper is to review the fundamental literature relative to the clinical application of ICP monitoring in TBI critical care and to provide recommendations on how the technique maybe applied to help patient management and enhance outcome. A PubMed search between 1980 and September 2013 identified 2,253 articles; 244 of which were reviewed in detail to prepare this report and the evidentiary tables. Several important concepts emerge from this review. ICP monitoring is safe and is best performed using a parenchymal monitor or ventricular catheter. While the indications for ICP monitoring are well established, there remains great variability in its use. Increased ICP, particularly the pattern of the increase and ICP refractory to treatment is associated with increased mortality. Class I evidence is lacking on how monitoring and management of ICP influences outcome. However, a large body of observational data suggests that ICP management has the potential to influence outcome, particularly when care is targeted and individualized and supplemented with data from other monitors including the clinical examination and imaging.

The burden of disease and so the need for care is often greater at hospitals in emerging economies. This is compounded by frequent restrictions in the delivery of good quality clinical care due to resource limitations. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in this economically defined group, such that advanced brain monitoring is routinely practiced at certain centers that have an interest in neurocritical care. It also must be recognized that significant heterogeneity in the delivery of neurocritical care exists even within individual high-income countries (HICs), determined by costs and level of interest. Direct comparisons of data between HICs and the group of low- and middle-income countries (LAMICs) are made difficult by differences in patient demographics, selection for ICU admission, therapies administered, and outcome assessment. Evidence suggests that potential benefits of multimodality monitoring depend on an appropriate environment and clinical expertise. There is no evidence to suggest that patients in LAMICs where such resources exist should be treated any differently to patients from HICs. The potential for outcome benefits in LAMICs is arguably greater in absolute terms because of the large burden of disease; however, the relative cost/benefit ratio of such monitoring in this setting must be viewed in context of the overall priorities in delivering health care at individual institutions.

Secondary ischemic injury is common after acute brain injury and can be evaluated with the use of neuromonitoring devices. This manuscript provides guidelines for the use of devices to monitor cerebral blood flow (CBF) in critically ill patients. A Medline search was conducted to address essential pre-specified questions related to the utility of CBF monitoring. Peer-reviewed recommendations were constructed according to the GRADE criteria based upon the available supporting literature. Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography (TCD) and transcranial color-coded duplex sonography (TCCS) are predictive of angiographic vasospasm and delayed ischemic neurological deficits after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. TCD and TCCS may be beneficial in identifying vasospasm after traumatic brain injury. TCD and TCCS have shortcomings in identifying some secondary ischemic risks. Implantable thermal diffusion flowmetry (TDF) probes may provide real-time continuous quantitative assessment of ischemic risks. Data are lacking regarding ischemic thresholds for TDF or their correlation with ischemic injury and clinical outcomes.TCD and TCCS can be used to monitor CBF in the neurocritical care unit. Better and more developed methods of continuous CBF monitoring are needed to limit secondary ischemic injury in the neurocritical care unit.

Serial clinical examination represents the most fundamental and basic form of neurological monitoring, and is often the first and only form of such monitoring in patients. Even in patients subjected to physiological monitoring using a range of technologies, the clinical examination remains an essential tool to follow neurological progress. Key aspects of the clinical examination have now been systematized into scoring schemes, and address consciousness, pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD). The Glasgow Coma Scale has been the traditional tool to measure consciousness, but the full outline of unresponsiveness (FOUR) score has recently been validated in a variety of settings, and at present, both represent clinically useful tools. Assessment of PAD in neurologically compromised patients present special challenges. For pain, the Numeric Rating Scale is the preferred initial approach, with either the Behavioral Pain Scale or the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool in subjects who are not able to respond. The Nociception Coma Scale-Revised may be useful in patients with severe disorders of consciousness. Conventional sedation scoring tools for critical care, such as the Richmond Area Sedation Scale (RASS) and Sedation–Agitation Scale (SAS) may provide reasonable tools in some neurocritical care patients. The use of sedative drugs and neuromuscular blockers may invalidate the use of some clinical examination tools in others. The use of sedation interruption to assess neurological status can result in physiological derangement in unstable patients (such as those with uncontrolled intracranial hypertension), and is not recommended.

Pressure autoregulation is an important hemodynamic mechanism that protects the brain against inappropriate fluctuations in cerebral blood flow in the face of changing cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP). Static autoregulation represents how far cerebrovascular resistance changes when CPP varies, and dynamic autoregulation represents how fast these changes happen. Both have been monitored in the setting of neurocritical care to aid prognostication and contribute to individualizing CPP targets in patients. Failure of autoregulation is associated with a worse outcome in various acute neurological diseases. Several studies have used transcranial Doppler ultrasound, intracranial pressure (ICP with vascular reactivity as surrogate measure of autoregulation), and near-infrared spectroscopy to continuously monitor the impact of spontaneous fluctuations in CPP on cerebrovascular physiology and to calculate derived variables of autoregulatory efficiency. Many patients who undergo such monitoring demonstrate a range of CPP in which autoregulatory efficiency is optimal. Management of patients at or near this optimal level of CPP is associated with better outcomes in traumatic brain injury. Many of these studies have utilized the concept of the pressure reactivity index, a correlation coefficient between ICP and mean arterial pressure. While further studies are needed, these data suggest that monitoring of autoregulation could aid prognostication and may help identify optimal CPP levels in individual patients.

Microdialysis is a powerful technique, which enables the chemistry of the extracellular space to be measured directly. Applying this technique to patients in neurointensive care has increased our understanding of the pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury and spontaneous hemorrhage. In parallel, it is important to determine the place of microdialysis in assisting in the management of patients on an individual intention to treat basis. This is made possible by the availability of analyzers which can measure the concentration of glucose, pyruvate, lactate, and glutamate at the bedside. Samples can then be stored for later analysis of other substrate and metabolites e.g., other amino acids and cytokines. The objective of this paper is to review the fundamental literature pertinent to the clinical application of microdialysis in neurointensive care and to give recommendations on how the technique can be applied to assist in patient management and contribute to outcome. A literature search detected 1,933 publications of which 55 were used for data abstraction and analysis. The role of microdialysis was evaluated in three conditions (traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and intracerebral hemorrhage) and recommendations focused on three fundamental areas (relationship to outcome, application of microdialysis to guide therapy, and the ability of microdialysis to predict secondary deterioration).

Purpose To provide clinical practice recommendations and generate a research agenda on mechanical ventilation and respiratory support in patients with acute brain injury (ABI). Methods An international consensus panel was convened including 29 clinician-scientists in intensive care medicine with expertise in acute respiratory failure, neurointensive care, or both, and two non-voting methodologists. The panel was divided into seven subgroups, each addressing a predefined clinical practice domain relevant to patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with ABI, defined as acute traumatic brain or cerebrovascular injury. The panel conducted systematic searches and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to evaluate evidence and formulate questions. A modified Delphi process was implemented with four rounds of voting in which panellists were asked to respond to questions (rounds 1–3) and then recommendation statements (final round). Strong recommendation, weak recommendation, or no recommendation were defined when > 85%, 75–85%, and

Background Although coma is commonly encountered in critical care, worldwide variability exists in diagnosis and management practices. We aimed to assess variability in coma definitions, etiologies, treatment strategies, and attitudes toward prognosis. Methods As part of the Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign, between September 2020 and January 2021, we conducted an anonymous, international, cross-sectional global survey of health care professionals caring for patients with coma and disorders of consciousness in the acute, subacute, or chronic setting. Survey responses were solicited by sequential emails distributed by international neuroscience societies and social media. Fleiss κ values were calculated to assess agreement among respondents. Results The survey was completed by 258 health care professionals from 41 countries. Respondents predominantly were physicians (n = 213, 83%), were from the United States (n = 141, 55%), and represented academic centers (n = 231, 90%). Among eight predefined items, respondents identified the following cardinal features, in various combinations, that must be present to define coma: absence of wakefulness (81%, κ = 0.764); Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) ≤ 8 (64%, κ = 0.588); failure to respond purposefully to visual, verbal, or tactile stimuli (60%, κ = 0.552); and inability to follow commands (58%, κ = 0.529). Reported etiologies of coma encountered included medically induced coma (24%), traumatic brain injury (24%), intracerebral hemorrhage (21%), and cardiac arrest/hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (11%). The most common clinical assessment tools used for coma included the GCS (94%) and neurological examination (78%). Sixty-six percent of respondents routinely performed sedation interruption, in the absence of contraindications, for clinical coma assessments in the intensive care unit. Advanced neurological assessment techniques in comatose patients included quantitative electroencephalography (EEG)/connectivity analysis (16%), functional magnetic resonance imaging (7%), single-photon emission computerized tomography (6%), positron emission tomography (4%), invasive EEG (4%), and cerebral microdialysis (4%). The most commonly used neurostimulants included amantadine (51%), modafinil (37%), and methylphenidate (28%). The leading determinants for prognostication included etiology of coma, neurological examination findings, and neuroimaging. Fewer than 20% of respondents reported routine follow-up of coma survivors after hospital discharge; however, 86% indicated interest in future research initiatives that include postdischarge outcomes at six (85%) and 12 months (65%). Conclusions There is wide heterogeneity among health care professionals regarding the clinical definition of coma and limited routine use of advanced coma assessment techniques in acute care settings. Coma management practices vary across sites, and mechanisms for coordinated and sustained follow-up after acute treatment are inconsistent. There is an urgent need for the development of evidence-based guidelines and a collaborative, coordinated approach to advance both the science and the practice of coma management globally.

A variety of technologies have been developed to assist decision-making during the management of patients with acute brain injury who require intensive care. A large body of research has been generated describing these various technologies. The Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium (LABIC) organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to perform a systematic review of the published literature to help develop evidence-based practice recommendations on bedside physiologic monitoring. This supplement contains a Consensus Summary Statement with recommendations and individual topic reviews on physiologic processes important in the care of acute brain injury. In this article we provide the evidentiary tables for select topics including systemic hemodynamics, intracranial pressure, brain and systemic oxygenation, EEG, brain metabolism, biomarkers, processes of care and monitoring in emerging economies to provide the clinician ready access to evidence that supports recommendations about neuromonitoring.

Neurocritical care depends, in part, on careful patient monitoring but as yet there are little data on what processes are the most important to monitor, how these should be monitored, and whether monitoring these processes is cost-effective and impacts outcome. At the same time, bioinformatics is a rapidly emerging field in critical care but as yet there is little agreement or standardization on what information is important and how it should be displayed and analyzed. The Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine, and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to begin to address these needs. International experts from neurosurgery, neurocritical care, neurology, critical care, neuroanesthesiology, nursing, pharmacy, and informatics were recruited on the basis of their research, publication record, and expertise. They undertook a systematic literature review to develop recommendations about specific topics on physiologic processes important to the care of patients with disorders that require neurocritical care. This review does not make recommendations about treatment, imaging, and intraoperative monitoring. A multidisciplinary jury, selected for their expertise in clinical investigation and development of practice guidelines, guided this process. The GRADE system was used to develop recommendations based on literature review, discussion, integrating the literature with the participants' collective experience, and critical review by an impartial jury. Emphasis was placed on the principle that recommendations should be based on both data quality and on trade-offs and translation into clinical practice. Strong consideration was given to providing pragmatic guidance and recommendations for bedside neuromonitoring, even in the absence of high quality data.

Careful patient monitoring using a variety of techniques including clinical and laboratory evaluation, bedside physiological monitoring with continuous or non-continuous techniques and imaging is fundamental to the care of patients who require neurocritical care. How best to perform and use bedside monitoring is still being elucidated. To create a basic platform for care and a foundation for further research the Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to develop recommendations about physiologic bedside monitoring. This supplement contains a Consensus Summary Statement with recommendations and individual topic reviews as a background to the recommendations. In this article, we highlight the recommendations and provide additional conclusions as an aid to the reader and to facilitate bedside care.