Search

Background: The response of Canada's research community to the COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to examine the country's clinical health research ecosystem. We sought to describe patterns of enrolment across Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)–funded studies on COVID-19. Methods: We identified COVID-19 studies funded by the CIHR and that enrolled participants from Canadian acute care hospitals between January 2020 and April 2023. We collected information on study-and site-level variables from study leads, site investigators, and public domain sources. We described and evaluated factors associated with cumulative enrolment. Results: We obtained information for 23 out of 26 (88%) eligible CIHR-funded studies (16 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 7 cohort studies). The 23 studies were managed by 12 Canadian and 3 international coordinating centres. Of 419 Canadian hospitals, 97 (23%) enrolled a total of 28 973 participants — 3876 in RCTs across 78 hospitals (median cumulative enrolment per hospital 30, interquartile range [IQR] 10–61), and 25 097 in cohort studies across 62 hospitals (median cumulative enrolment per hospital 158, IQR 6–348). Of 78 hospitals recruiting participants in RCTs, 13 (17%) enrolled 50% of all RCT participants, whereas 6 of 62 hospitals (9.7%) recruited 54% of participants in cohort studies. Interpretation: A minority of Canadian hospitals enrolled the majority of participants in CIHR-funded studies on COVID-19. This analysis sheds light on the Canadian health research ecosystem and provides information for multiple key partners to consider ways to realize the full research potential of Canada's health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted non-COVID critical care trials globally as intensive care units (ICUs) prioritized patient care and COVID-specific research. The international randomized controlled trial CYCLE (Critical Care Cycling to Improve Lower Extremity Strength) was forced to halt recruitment at all sites in March 2020, creating immediate challenges. We applied the CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstance) statement as a framework to report the impact of the pandemic on CYCLE and describe our mitigation approaches.Methods: On March 23, 2020, the CYCLE Methods Centre distributed a standardized email to determine the number of patients still in-hospital and those requiring imminent 90-day endpoint assessments. We assessed protocol fidelity by documenting attempts to provide the in-hospital randomized intervention (cycling or routine physiotherapy) and collect the primary outcome (physical function 3-days post-ICU discharge) and 90-day outcomes. We advised sites to prioritize data for the study's primary outcome. We sought feedback on pandemic barriers related to trial procedures.Results: Our main Methods Centre mitigation strategies included identifying patients at risk for protocol deviations, communicating early and frequently with sites, developing standardized internal tools focused on high-risk points in the protocol for monitoring patient progress, data entry, and validation, and providing guidance to conduct some research activities remotely. For study sites, our strategies included determining how institutional pandemic research policies applied to CYCLE, communicating with the Methods Centre about capacity to continue any part of the research, and developing contingency plans to ensure the protocol was delivered as intended. From 15 active sites (12 Canada, 2 US, 1 Australia), 5 patients were still receiving the study intervention in ICUs, 6 required primary outcomes, and 17 required 90-day assessments. With these mitigation strategies, we attempted 100% of ICU interventions, 83% of primary outcomes, and 100% of 90-day assessments per our protocol.Conclusions: We retained all enrolled patients with minimal missing data using several time-sensitive strategies. Although CONSERVE recommends reporting only major modifications incurred by extenuating circumstances, we suggest that it also provides a helpful framework for reporting mitigation strategies with the goal of improving research transparency and trial management.Trial Registration: NCT03471247. Registered on March 20, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multiple clinical practice guidelines recommend minimizing radiation in trauma patients but there is a knowledge gap on the importance of this problem for trauma transfers. We aimed to estimate the incidence of pretransfer and repeat posttransfer computed tomography (CT) overall and in patients with an indication for immediate transfer, to assess interhospital practice variation, to identify predictors, and to quantify the influence of pretransfer CT on time to transfer. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study on patients transferred to major trauma centers from 2013 to 2019. Multilevel generalized linear regression was used to generate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to assess interhospital variation, multilevel logistic regression to generate odds ratios for each predictor, and geometric mean ratios to quantify the influence of CT on time to transfer. Results Of 18,244 patients included, 8501 (47%) had a pretransfer CT and one‐quarter (26%) had a repeat posttransfer CT. Interhospital variation was moderate for pretransfer CT (5%–66%, ICC 12.5%) and for repeat posttransfer CT (7%–44%, ICC 14.7%). Pretransfer imaging was more frequent in elders and in males and repeat posttransfer imaging decreased over the study period but was more frequent in patients transferred in from Level III/IV centers than nondesignated hospitals. Time to transfer was doubled in patients who had a pretransfer CT. Conclusions: Results suggest that pretransfer CT and repeat posttransfer CT are frequent and are subject to significant practice variation. In addition, pretransfer CT is associated with increased times to transfer though additional studies are needed to demonstrate causation. These results highlight potential opportunities to reduce low‐value imaging for trauma transfers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research nationally, contributions from other countries have greatly exceeded Canada's research productivity. We discuss the limitations of the existing clinical research infrastructure in Canada, describe the mechanisms implemented to successfully embed clinical research in the UK health system and - while identifying the traps that Canadian stakeholders must avoid - provide a roadmap to a Canadian version of the UK system. The NIHR model, which takes advantage of a preexisting, longitudinally funded clinical research network funded by and embedded within the National Health Service (NHS), simultaneously solved problems related to infrastructure development, health system engagement and fragmentation in the UK context. Footnotes 1 B Competing interests: b François Lamontagne has received peer-reviewed funds from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and the Lotte & John Hecht Memorial Foundation. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia / Journal Canadien d'Anesthésie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Most deaths in critically ill patients with severe traumatic brain injury are associated with a decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments. We aimed to identify the behavioural determinants that influence recommendations by critical care physicians to consider the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in this population.Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study based on the Theoretical Domains Framework of critical care physicians caring for patients with severe traumatic brain injury across Canada. We stratified critical care physicians by regions and used a purposive sampling strategy. We conducted semistructured phone interviews using a piloted and pretested interview guide. We transcribed the interviews verbatim and verified the content for accuracy. We performed the analysis using a 3-step approach: coding, generation of specific beliefs and generation of specific themes.Results: We recruited 20 critical care physicians across 4 geographic regions. After reaching saturation, we identified 7 core themes across 4 Theoretical Domains Framework domains for factors relevant to the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments. Four factors (i.e., clinical triggers, social triggers, interaction with families and intentions with medical decisions) were identified before the decision is made and 3 were identified during the decision-making process (i.e., considerations, priorities and knowledge needs). We identified multiple themes reflecting internal (n = 18, 8 Theoretical Domains Framework domains) and external (n = 15, 6 Theoretical Domains Framework domains) influences on the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments.Interpretation: We identified several core themes and domains considered by critical care physicians in Canada in the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in critically ill patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Future research should aim at identifying the factors influencing surrogate decision-makers in the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomized trials investigating the effect of corticosteroids in the treatment of acute lung injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and severe pneumonia have had mixed results. We sought to determine whether systemic corticosteroids reduce hospital mortality from these illnesses. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of published and unpublished randomized trials. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL and reviewed proceedings from relevant society meetings. Two reviewers screened the literature and extracted data independently. For each outcome, we used Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to evaluate the quality of the underlying evidence. Results: We included 12 trials enrolling 966 patients. Pooling across all trials, corticosteroids did not significantly reduce hospital mortality (relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.06). In a subgroup analysis by dose of corticosteroid, trials using the equivalent of 2 mg kg−1 d−1 or less of methylprednisolone (9 trials) found lower hospital mortality with corticosteroid therapy (relative risk 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.96). The quality of the evidence underlying the pooled estimate of effect on hospital mortality was low, downgraded for inconsistency and imprecision. Conclusions: Low-dose corticosteroids administered within 14 days of disease onset may reduce all-cause mortality in patients with acute lung injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and severe pneumonia. However, the overall quality of the evidence precludes definitive conclusions regarding the use of corticosteroids in this population. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Purpose: Reliance on third party consent for patients without decision-making capacity presents unique challenges for critical care research. We compared the attitudes and beliefs of Canadian research ethics boards (REBs) and intensive care unit researchers toward the use of various consent models for a low-risk randomized controlled trial. Materials and Methods: Self-administered, scenario-based survey. Results: Sixty-two percent of eligible REBs (n = 83) and 78% of eligible researchers (n = 124) completed the questionnaire. The REBs were less comfortable endorsing alternative consent models when a substitute decision maker was unavailable, including consent provided by (a) the intensivist involved with the trial (2.0% vs 15.3%; P = .014), (b) the intensivist not involved with the trial (10.0% vs 36.7%; P = .001), (c) 2 physicians (the intensivist and another consultant, neither of whom is involved with the trial) (18.0% vs 54.1%; P < .001), and (d) 2 physicians involved neither with the trial nor the patient''s care (10.2% vs 52.0%; P < .001). In similar circumstances, REBs were less comfortable approving both deferred (8.0% vs 43.3%; P < .001) and waived (4.1% vs 22.4%; P = .005) consent. Conclusions: In this survey of scenarios involving low-risk critical care research, REBs were significantly more conservative in approving alternative consent models compared with investigators. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article discusses a study of the trends in frequency of publication and quality of reporting of surveys published in critical care journals between 1996 and 2009. The study involved 220 potentially eligible surveys. Majority of surveys were from the U.S. and Canada. Results showed that research programs are significantly affected by enhanced rigor of survey and that researchers should practice caution in interpreting self-reported practice or behavior.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for clinical trials worldwide, threatening premature closure and trial integrity. Every phase of research operations was affected, often requiring modifications to protocol design and implementation., Objectives: To identify the barriers, solutions, and opportunities associated with continuing critical care trials that were interrupted during the pandemic, and to generate suggestions for future trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study performed an explanatory sequential analysis involving a self-administered electronic survey and focus groups of principal investigators (PIs) and project coordinators (PCs) conducting adult and pediatric individual-patient randomized trials of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible trials were actively enrolling patients on March 11, 2020. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and January 2024., Main Outcomes and Measures: Importance ratings of barriers to trial conduct and completion, solutions employed, opportunities arising, and suggested strategies for future trials. Quantitative data examining barriers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data addressing solutions, opportunities, and suggestions were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Integration involved triangulation of data sources and perspectives about 13 trials, synthesized by an interprofessional team incorporating reflexivity and member-checking., Results: A total of 13 trials run by 29 PIs and PCs (100% participation rate) were included. The highest-rated barriers (on a 5-point scale) to ongoing conduct during the pandemic were decisions to pause all clinical research (mean [SD] score, 4.7 [0.8]), focus on COVID-19 studies (mean [SD] score, 4.6 [0.8]), and restricted family presence in hospitals (mean [SD] score, 4.1 [0.8]). Suggestions to enable trial progress and completion included providing scientific leadership, implementing technology for communication and data management, facilitating the informed consent process, adapting the protocol as necessary, fostering site engagement, initiating new sites, streamlining ethics and contract review, and designing nested studies. The pandemic necessitated new funding opportunities to sustain trial enrollment. It increased public awareness of critical illness and the importance of randomized trial evidence., Conclusions and Relevance: While underscoring the vital role of research in society and drawing the scientific community together with a common purpose, the pandemic signaled the need for innovation to ensure the rigor and completion of ongoing trials. Lessons learned to optimize research procedures will help to ensure a vibrant clinical trials enterprise in the future.

Objectives: Distributed computations facilitate multi-institutional data analysis while avoiding the costs and complexity of data pooling. Existing approaches lack crucial features, such as built-in medical standards and terminologies, no-code data visualizations, explicit disclosure control mechanisms, and support for basic statistical computations, in addition to gradient-based optimization capabilities., Materials and Methods: We describe the development of the Collaborative Data Analysis (CODA) platform, and the design choices undertaken to address the key needs identified during our survey of stakeholders. We use a public dataset (MIMIC-IV) to demonstrate end-to-end multi-modal FL using CODA. We assessed the technical feasibility of deploying the CODA platform at 9 hospitals in Canada, describe implementation challenges, and evaluate its scalability on large patient populations., Results: The CODA platform was designed, developed, and deployed between January 2020 and January 2023. Software code, documentation, and technical documents were released under an open-source license. Multi-modal federated averaging is illustrated using the MIMIC-IV and MIMIC-CXR datasets. To date, 8 out of the 9 participating sites have successfully deployed the platform, with a total enrolment of >1M patients. Mapping data from legacy systems to FHIR was the biggest barrier to implementation., Discussion and Conclusion: The CODA platform was developed and successfully deployed in a public healthcare setting in Canada, with heterogeneous information technology systems and capabilities. Ongoing efforts will use the platform to develop and prospectively validate models for risk assessment, proactive monitoring, and resource usage. Further work will also make tools available to facilitate migration from legacy formats to FHIR and DICOM., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

Purpose: To categorize, quantify and interpret findings documented in feedback letters of monitoring or auditing visits for an investigator-initiated, peer-review funded multicenter randomized trial testing probiotics for critically ill patients., Materials & Methods: In 37 Canadian centers, monitoring and auditing visits were performed by 3 trained individuals; findings were reported in feedback letters. At trial termination, we performed duplicate content analysis on letters, categorizing observations first into unique findings, followed by 10 pre-determined trial quality management domains. We further classified each observation into a) missing operational records, b) errors in process, and potential threats to c) data integrity, d) patient privacy or e) safety., Results: Across 37 monitoring or auditing visits, 75 unique findings were categorized into 10 domains. Most frequently, observations were in domains of training documentation (180/566 [32%]) and the informed consent process (133/566 [23%]). Most observations were missing operational records (438/566 [77%]) rather than errors in process (128/566 [23%]). Of 75 findings, 13 (62/566 observations [11%]) posed a potential threat to data integrity, 1 (1/566 observation [0.18%]) to patient privacy, and 9 (49/566 observations [8.7%]) to patient safety., Conclusions: Monitoring and auditing findings predominantly concerned missing documentation with minimal threats to data integrity, patient privacy or safety., Trial Registration: PROSPECT (Probiotics: Prevention of Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial): NCT02462590., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. F D'Aragon is a recipient of a Research Career Award from the Fonds de la recherche du Québec-Santé. Dr. S English holds a National New Investigator award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Dr. D Cook holds a Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Translation in Critical Care., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Appropriate training of health professionals has been recommended to increase organ donation rates. Some studies have shown insufficient knowledge among medical students. This survey aims to describe their knowledge and attitude toward organ donation (OD)., Method: We designed, pre-tested and conducted an online survey of all undergraduate medical students from Montreal, Laval and Sherbrooke universities in 2016-2017. Multivariate linear regression identified factors associated with a better knowledge score., Results: Twenty-two percent (750/3344) of students completed the survey. Ninety-one percent of students adequately knew that neurological death is irreversible; 76% acknowledged that someone could be neurologically deceased while his heart is still beating; 69% were not aware of circulatory determination of death. For only one knowledge item, senior students had a better answer than junior students. Total knowledge score was associated with exposure to OD during medical studies and comfort in answering patients' questions about OD (p < 0,001). Regarding attitude, 96% of respondents wished to become organ donors after death and 92% supported OD training during their medical training., Conclusion: Despite a favourable attitude, medical students have limited knowledge of OD. Findings suggest the need for a formal curriculum about OD, as students expressed.

Competing Interests: Intérêts concurrents: François Lamontagne a été rémunéré par les Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada, le Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé, le National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) et la Fondation Lotte & John Hecht pour avoir fait des évaluations par les pairs. Il a codirigé l’essai « 65 Trial », un projet financé par le programme d’évaluation des technologies en santé du NIHR (PMID : 32049269) et coordonné par l’unité des essais cliniques de l’Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC). Il est également codirecteur scientifique du Réseau Sepsis Canada, qui reçoit des fonds des IRSC, et codirecteur du Réseau québécois COVID — Pandémie, qui lui est financé par le Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé. Kathryn Rowan est directrice de l’ICNARC et de son unité d’essais cliniques, et également professeure honoraire à la London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Elle déclare avoir reçu des subventions des programmes de financement de la recherche du NIHR. Aucun autre intérêt concurrent n’a été déclaré.

Background: Clinical data on patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide clinicians and public health officials with information to guide practice and policy. The aims of this study were to describe patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care, and to investigate predictors of outcome to characterize severe acute respiratory infection., Methods: This observational cohort study used Canadian data from 32 selected hospitals included in a global multisite cohort between Jan. 24 and July 7, 2020. Adult and pediatric patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received care in an intensive care unit (ICU) and a sampling of up to the first 60 patients receiving care on hospital wards were included. We performed descriptive analyses of characteristics, interventions and outcomes. The primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality, with secondary analyses of the length of hospital and ICU stay., Results: Between January and July 2020, among 811 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19, the median age was 64 (interquartile range [IQR] 53-75) years, 495 (61.0%) were men, 46 (5.7%) were health care workers, 9 (1.1%) were pregnant, 26 (3.2%) were younger than 18 years and 9 (1.1%) were younger than 5 years. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 7 (IQR 3-10) days. The most common symptoms on admission were fever, shortness of breath, cough and malaise. Diabetes, hypertension and cardiac, kidney and respiratory disease were the most common comorbidities. Among all patients, 328 received care in an ICU, admitted a median of 0 (IQR 0-1) days after hospital admission. Critically ill patients received treatment with invasive mechanical ventilation (88.8%), renal replacement therapy (14.9%) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (4.0%); 26.2% died. Among those receiving mechanical ventilation, 31.2% died. Age was an influential predictor of mortality (odds ratio per additional year of life 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.09)., Interpretation: Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 commonly had fever, respiratory symptoms and comorbid conditions. Increasing age was associated with the development of critical illness and death; however, most critically ill patients in Canada, including those requiring mechanical ventilation, survived and were discharged from hospital., Competing Interests: Competing interests: See the end of the article. Competing interests: Todd Lee reports salary support from Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé. Deepali Kumar reports grants and personal fees from Roche. Michelle Kho reports grants from Canada Research Chairs. Matthew Cheng reports grants from the McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity and personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board) and personal fees from nplex biosciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board). Philippe Jouvet reports consulting for Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals and grants to his institution from VitalTracer and Evolucare. Patrick Archambault is a co-investigator in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)–funded Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (https://canadiancovid19ednetwork.org). No other competing interests were declared., (© 2021 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Introduction: Vasodilatory hypotension is common among intensive care unit (ICU) patients; vasopressors are considered standard of care. However, optimal mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor titration are unknown. The objective of the Optimal VAsopressor TitraTION in patients 65 years and older (OVATION-65) trial is to ascertain the effect of permissive hypotension (vasopressor titration to achieve MAP 60-65 mm Hg) versus usual care on biomarkers of organ injury in hypotensive patients aged ≥65 years., Methods and Analysis: OVATION-65 is an allocation-concealed randomised trial in 7 Canadian hospitals. Eligible patients are ≥65 years of age, in an ICU with vasodilatory hypotension, receiving vasopressors for ≤12 hours to maintain MAP ≥65 mm Hg during or after adequate fluid resuscitation, and expected to receive vasopressors for ≥6 additional hours. Patients are excluded for any of the following: active treatment for spinal cord or acute brain injury; vasopressors given solely for bleeding, ventricular failure or postcardiopulmonary bypass vasoplegia; withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments expected within 48 hours; death perceived as imminent; previous enrolment in OVATION-65; organ transplant within the last year; receiving extracorporeal life support or lack of physician equipoise. Patients are randomised to permissive hypotension versus usual care for up to 28 days. The primary outcome is high-sensitivity troponin T, a biomarker of cardiac injury, on day 3. Secondary outcomes include biomarkers of injury to other organs (brain, liver, intestine, skeletal muscle); lactate (a biomarker of global tissue dysoxia); resource utilisation; adverse events; mortality (90 days and 6 months) and cognitive function (6 months). Assessors of biomarkers, mortality and cognitive function are blinded to allocation., Ethics and Dissemination: This protocol has been approved at all sites. Consent is obtained from the eligible patient, the substitute decision-maker if the patient is incapable, or in a deferred fashion where permitted. End-of-grant dissemination plans include presentations, publications and social media platforms and discussion forums., Trial Registration Number: NCT03431181., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To examine adverse events and associated factors and outcomes during transition from ICU to hospital ward (after ICU discharge)., Design: Multicenter cohort study., Setting: Ten adult medical-surgical Canadian ICUs., Patients: Patients were those admitted to one of the 10 ICUs from July 2014 to January 2016., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Two ICU physicians independently reviewed progress and consultation notes documented in the medical record within 7 days of patient's ICU discharge date to identify and classify adverse events. The adverse event data were linked to patient characteristics and ICU and ward physician surveys collected during the larger prospective cohort study. Analyses were conducted using multivariable logistic regression. Of the 451 patients included in the study, 84 (19%) experienced an adverse event, the majority (62%) within 3 days of transfer from ICU to hospital ward. Most adverse events resulted only in symptoms (77%) and 36% were judged to be preventable. Patients with adverse events were more likely to be readmitted to the ICU (odds ratio, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.4-13.0), have a longer hospital stay (mean difference, 16.1 d; 95% CI, 8.4-23.7) or die in hospital (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.8-11.8) than those without an adverse event. ICU and ward physician predictions at the time of ICU discharge had low sensitivity and specificity for predicting adverse events, ICU readmissions, and hospital death., Conclusions: Adverse events are common after ICU discharge to hospital ward and are associated with ICU readmission, increased hospital length of stay and death and are not predicted by ICU or ward physicians.

Purpose: Hemodynamic management of adults with distributive shock often includes the use of catecholamine-based vasoconstricting medications. It is unclear whether adding vasopressin or vasopressin analogues to catecholamine therapy is beneficial in the management of patients with distributive shock. The purpose of this guideline was to develop an evidence-based recommendation regarding the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors in the management of adults with distributive shock., Methods: We summarized the evidence informing this recommendation by updating a recently published meta-analysis. Then, a multidisciplinary panel from the Canadian Critical Care Society developed the recommendation using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology., Results: The updated systematic review identified 25 randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,737 patients with distributive shock. Compared with catecholamine therapy alone, the addition of vasopressin or its analogues was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 0.99; low certainty), reduced risk of atrial fibrillation (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88; high certainty), and increased risk of digital ischemia (RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.24 to 5.25; moderate certainty)., Conclusions: After considering certainty in the evidence, values and preferences, cost, and other factors, the expert guideline panel suggests using vasopressin or vasopressin analogues in addition to catecholamines over catecholamine vasopressors alone for the management of distributive shock (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence).

Background: Most deaths in critically ill patients with severe traumatic brain injury are associated with a decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments. We aimed to identify the behavioural determinants that influence recommendations by critical care physicians to consider the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in this population., Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study based on the Theoretical Domains Framework of critical care physicians caring for patients with severe traumatic brain injury across Canada. We stratified critical care physicians by regions and used a purposive sampling strategy. We conducted semistructured phone interviews using a piloted and pretested interview guide. We transcribed the interviews verbatim and verified the content for accuracy. We performed the analysis using a 3-step approach: coding, generation of specific beliefs and generation of specific themes., Results: We recruited 20 critical care physicians across 4 geographic regions. After reaching saturation, we identified 7 core themes across 4 Theoretical Domains Framework domains for factors relevant to the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments. Four factors (i.e., clinical triggers, social triggers, interaction with families and intentions with medical decisions) were identified before the decision is made and 3 were identified during the decision-making process (i.e., considerations, priorities and knowledge needs). We identified multiple themes reflecting internal ( n = 18, 8 Theoretical Domains Framework domains) and external ( n = 15, 6 Theoretical Domains Framework domains) influences on the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments., Interpretation: We identified several core themes and domains considered by critical care physicians in Canada in the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in critically ill patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Future research should aim at identifying the factors influencing surrogate decision-makers in the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in these patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 2019 Joule Inc. or its licensors or its licensors.)

Background: Survey data suggest that Canadian intensivists administer corticosteroids to critically ill patients primarily in response to airway obstruction, perceived risk for adrenal insufficiency and hemodynamic instability., Objective: To describe variables independently associated with systemic corticosteroid therapy during an influenza outbreak., Methods: The present analysis was retrospective cohort study involving critically ill patients with influenza in two Canadian cities. Hospital records were reviewed for critically ill patients treated in the intensive care units (ICUs) of eight hospitals in Canada during the 2008 to 2009 and 2009 to 2010 influenza outbreaks. Abstracted data included demographic information, symptoms at disease onset, chronic comorbidities and baseline illness severity scores. Corticosteroid use data were extracted for every ICU day and expressed as hydrocortisone dose equivalent in mg. Multivariable regression models were constructed to identify variables independently associated with corticosteroid therapy in the ICU., Results: The study cohort included 90 patients with a mean (± SD) age of 55.0 ± 17.3 years and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 19.8 ± 8.3. Patients in 2009 to 2010 were younger with more severe lung injury but similar exposure to corticosteroids. Overall, 54% of patients received corticosteroids at a mean daily dose of 343 ± 330 mg of hydrocortisone for 8.5 ± 4.8 days. Variables independently associated with corticosteroid therapy in the ICU were history of airway obstruction (OR 4.8 [95% CI 1.6 to 14.9]) and hemodynamic instability (OR 4.6 [95% CI 1.2 to 17.8])., Conclusion: Observational data revealed that hemodynamic instability and airway obstruction were associated with corticosteroid therapy in the critical care setting, similar to a recent survey of stated practice. Efforts to determine the effects of corticosteroids in the ICU for these specific clinical situations are warranted.

Introduction: The transfer of patient care between the intensive care unit (ICU) and the hospital ward is associated with increased risk of medical error and adverse events. This study will describe patient transfer from ICU to hospital ward by documenting (1) patient, family and provider experiences related to ICU transfer, (2) communication between stakeholders involved in ICU transfer, (3) adverse events that follow ICU transfer and (4) opportunities to improve ICU to hospital ward transfer., Methods: This is a mixed methods prospective observational study of ICU to hospital ward transfer practices in 10 ICUs across Canada. We will recruit 50 patients at each site (n=500) who are transferred from ICU to hospital ward, and distribute surveys to enrolled patients, family members, and healthcare providers (ICU and ward physicians and nurses) after patient transfer. A random sample of 6 consenting study participants (patients, family members, healthcare providers) from each study site (n=60) will be offered an opportunity to participate in interviews to further describe stakeholders' experience with ICU to hospital ward transfer. We will abstract information from patient health records to identify clinical data and use of transfer tools, and identify adverse events that are related to the transfer., Ethics and Dissemination: Research ethics board approval has been obtained at the coordinating study centre (UofC REB13-0021) and 5 study sites (UofA Pro00050646; UBC-PHC H14-01667; Sunnybrook 336-2014; QCH 14-07; Sherbrooke 14-172). Dissemination of the findings will provide a comprehensive description of transfer from ICU to hospital ward in Canada including the uptake of validated or local transfer tools, a conceptual framework of the experiences and needs of stakeholders in the ICU transfer process, a summary of adverse events experienced by patients after transfer from ICU to hospital ward, and opportunities to guide quality improvement efforts., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Importance: Seriously ill hospitalized patients have identified communication and decision making about goals of care as high priorities for quality improvement in end-of-life care. Interventions to improve care are more likely to succeed if tailored to existing barriers., Objective: To determine, from the perspective of hospital-based clinicians, (1) barriers impeding communication and decision making about goals of care with seriously ill hospitalized patients and their families and (2) their own willingness and the acceptability for other clinicians to engage in this process., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter survey of medical teaching units of nurses, internal medicine residents, and staff physicians from participating units at 13 university-based hospitals from 5 Canadian provinces., Main Outcomes and Measures: Importance of 21 barriers to goals of care discussions rated on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely unimportant; 7 = extremely important)., Results: Between September 2012 and March 2013, questionnaires were returned by 1256 of 1617 eligible clinicians, for an overall response rate of 77.7% (512 of 646 nurses [79.3%], 484 of 634 residents [76.3%], 260 of 337 staff physicians [77.2%]). The following family member-related and patient-related factors were consistently identified by all 3 clinician groups as the most important barriers to goals of care discussions: family members' or patients' difficulty accepting a poor prognosis (mean [SD] score, 5.8 [1.2] and 5.6 [1.3], respectively), family members' or patients' difficulty understanding the limitations and complications of life-sustaining treatments (5.8 [1.2] for both groups), disagreement among family members about goals of care (5.8 [1.2]), and patients' incapacity to make goals of care decisions (5.6 [1.2]). Clinicians perceived their own skills and system factors as less important barriers. Participants viewed it as acceptable for all clinician groups to engage in goals of care discussions-including a role for advance practice nurses, nurses, and social workers to initiate goals of care discussions and be a decision coach., Conclusions and Relevance: Hospital-based clinicians perceive family member-related and patient-related factors as the most important barriers to goals of care discussions. All health care professionals were viewed as playing important roles in addressing goals of care. These findings can inform the design of future interventions to improve communication and decision making about goals of care.