Search

Purpose: Patients treated postoperatively in surgical intensive care units often receive delayed enteral nutrition. We hypothesized that the introduction of guidelines promoting early enteral nutrition is associated with earlier enteral feeding. Methods: Enteral nutrition guidelines were created by the consensus of a multidisciplinary team consisting of intensivists, nurses, nutritionists, and surgeons. The guidelines were implemented through repeated staff education. We prospectively compared data on nutritional support in the surgical intensive care unit of a tertiary care center before (pre-intervention period, from January 27 to April 30, 2008) and after (post-intervention period, from May 1st to August 15th, 2008) implementation of the guidelines. The primary outcome was time to enteral feeding (oral or tube feeding). Results: 146 patients were evaluated during the pre-period and 141 patients during the post-period. Patients during the two time periods had similar demographics and clinical characteristics. None of the patients were without nutrition for longer than 7 days. Oral or feeding tube nutrition was started earlier in the post-period (median 1 vs. 2 days, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the percentages of patients receiving parenteral nutrition (7.4 vs. 10%, p = 0.360). There was no increase in aspiration events in the post-period (8 vs. 9.4%, p = 0.606). Conclusions: Introduction of guidelines to facilitate enteral nutrition in a surgical intensive care unit was associated with earlier enteral feeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delirium is prevalent in surgical and trauma intensive care units (ICUs) and carries substantial morbidity. This study tested the hypothesis that daily administration of a diagnostic instrument for delirium in a surgical/trauma ICU decreases the time of institution of pharmacologic therapy and improves related outcomes., Methods: Controlled trial of two concurrent groups. The Confusion-Assessment Method for ICU was administered daily to all eligible patients admitted to our surgical/trauma ICU for 48 hours or longer. The result was communicated to one of the two preexisting ICU services (intervention service) and not the other (control service). Primary outcome was the time between diagnosis of delirium and pharmacologic treatment. Secondary outcomes included duration of delirium, mechanical ventilation, and ICU stay., Results: Delirium occurred in 98 (35%) of 283 consecutive patients. Time between diagnosis and therapy did not differ between intervention (35 [35] hours) and control (40 [41] hours) groups. There was a difference in the number of delirium days treated in the intervention (73%) versus control (64%) groups (p = 0.035). The intervention group had significantly lower odds to neglect treating delirium when delirium was present (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.00; p = 0.05). In the subgroup of trauma patients, the odds ratio of negligence was 0.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.99; p = 0.048), indicating lower probability for trauma patients to be untreated. There was no difference in the average duration of delirium, mechanical ventilation, and ICU stay., Conclusion: In our surgical/trauma ICU, daily screening for delirium did not affect the timing of pharmacologic therapy. Although the intervention resulted in a higher number of delirious ICU patients being treated, particularly trauma patients, there was no effect on related outcomes., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, level IV.

Objective: To evaluate whether the level of mobilization achieved and the barriers for progressing to the next mobilization level differ between nurses and physical therapists., Design: Prospective, observational study., Setting: Twenty-bed surgical intensive care unit (SICU) of the Massachusetts General Hospital., Participants: Sixty-three critically ill patients., Methods: Physical therapists and nurses performed 179 mobilization therapies with 63 patients., Outcome Measurement: Mobilization was defined as the process of enhancing mobility in the SICU, including bed mobility, edge of bed activities, transfers out of bed to a chair, and gait training; the mobilization level was measured on the SICU optimal mobilization scale, a 5-point (0-4) numerical rating scale., Results: Patients' level of mobilization achieved by physical therapists was significantly higher compared with that achieved by nurses (2.3 ± 1.2 mean ± SD versus 1.2 ± 1.2, respectively P < .0001). Different barriers for mobilization were identified by physical therapists and nurses: hemodynamic instability (26% versus 12%, P = .03) and renal replacement therapy (12% versus 1%, P = .03) were barriers rated higher by nurses, whereas neurologic impairment was rated higher by physical therapists providers (18% versus 38%, P = .002). No mobilization-associated adverse events were observed in this study., Conclusions: This study showed that physical therapists mobilize their critically ill patients to higher levels compared with nurses. Nurse and physical therapists identify different barriers for mobilization. Routine involvement of physical therapists in directing mobilization treatment may promote early mobilization of critically ill patients., (Copyright © 2011 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients who survive the acute phase of respiratory failure often are transferred to units with specialized expertise. These patients have a high risk of being readmitted to the acute care hospital. We conducted this study to determine whether supplementing a written report with a verbal telephone report reduces readmission rates within the first 72 h after discharge and decreases hospital costs. The study design was observational with a historical control group that included patients admitted to our respiratory acute care unit between November 2003 and October 2005. In November 2005, we implemented a strategy in which a written report at discharge was supplemented with a telephone report by the physician or nurse practitioner, nurse, and respiratory therapist. The intervention group began in November 2005 and continued through October 2007. The primary end point was readmission to Massachusetts General Hospital within 72 h of discharge. We also determined the cost related to readmission. The study included 362 patients. The OR for readmission if the handoff included a verbal report was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.17-1.04). The total hospital cost was significantly lower in the group where verbal report was used ($111,723 vs $148,574; P = .002). Supplementing a written report with a verbal telephone report was associated with a significant reduction in cost and an average savings of ∼ $184,000 for every 100 patients discharged, representing added value in delivered care.