Search

The measurement of quality indicators supports quality improvement initiatives. The German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) has published quality indicators for intensive care medicine for the fourth time now. After a scheduled evaluation after three years, changes in several indicators were made. Other indicators were not changed or only minimally. The focus remained strongly on relevant treatment processes like management of analgesia and sedation, mechanical ventilation and weaning, and infections in the ICU. Another focus was communication inside the ICU. The number of 1ndicators remained the same. The development method was more structured and transparency was increased by adding new features like evidence levels or author contribution and potential conflicts of interest. These quality indicators should be used in the peer review in intensive care, a method endorsed by the DIVI. Other forms of measurement and evaluation are also reasonable, for example in quality management. This fourth edition of the quality indicators will be updated in the future to reflect the recently published recommendations on the structure of intensive care units by the DIVI.

BackgroundThe increasing development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in medicine driven by researchers and entrepreneurs goes along with enormous expectations for medical care advancement. AI might change the clinical practice of physicians from almost all medical disciplines and in most areas of health care. While expectations for AI in medicine are high, practical implementations of AI for clinical practice are still scarce in Germany. Moreover, physicians’ requirements and expectations of AI in medicine and their opinion on the usage of anonymized patient data for clinical and biomedical research have not been investigated widely in German university hospitals. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate physicians’ requirements and expectations of AI in medicine and their opinion on the secondary usage of patient data for (bio)medical research (eg, for the development of machine learning algorithms) in university hospitals in Germany. MethodsA web-based survey was conducted addressing physicians of all medical disciplines in 8 German university hospitals. Answers were given using Likert scales and general demographic responses. Physicians were asked to participate locally via email in the respective hospitals. ResultsThe online survey was completed by 303 physicians (female: 121/303, 39.9%; male: 173/303, 57.1%; no response: 9/303, 3.0%) from a wide range of medical disciplines and work experience levels. Most respondents either had a positive (130/303, 42.9%) or a very positive attitude (82/303, 27.1%) towards AI in medicine. There was a significant association between the personal rating of AI in medicine and the self-reported technical affinity level (H4=48.3, P

BackgroundThe use of mobile devices in hospital care constantly increases. However, smartphones and tablets have not yet widely become official working equipment in medical care. Meanwhile, the parallel use of private and official devices in hospitals is common. Medical staff use smartphones and tablets in a growing number of ways. This mixture of devices and how they can be used is a challenge to persons in charge of defining strategies and rules for the usage of mobile devices in hospital care. ObjectiveTherefore, we aimed to examine the status quo of physicians’ mobile device usage and concrete requirements and their future expectations of how mobile devices can be used. MethodsWe performed a web-based survey among physicians in 8 German university hospitals from June to October 2019. The online survey was forwarded by hospital management personnel to physicians from all departments involved in patient care at the local sites. ResultsA total of 303 physicians from almost all medical fields and work experience levels completed the web-based survey. The majority regarded a tablet (211/303, 69.6%) and a smartphone (177/303, 58.4%) as the ideal devices for their operational area. In practice, physicians are still predominantly using desktop computers during their worktime (mean percentage of worktime spent on a desktop computer: 56.8%; smartphone: 12.8%; tablet: 3.6%). Today, physicians use mobile devices for basic tasks such as oral (171/303, 56.4%) and written (118/303, 38.9%) communication and to look up dosages, diagnoses, and guidelines (194/303, 64.0%). Respondents are also willing to use mobile devices for more advanced applications such as an early warning system (224/303, 73.9%) and mobile electronic health records (211/303, 69.6%). We found a significant association between the technical affinity and the preference of device in medical care (χs2=53.84, P

BackgroundIn an effort to contain the effects of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, health care systems worldwide implemented telemedical solutions to overcome staffing, technical, and infrastructural limitations. In Germany, a multitude of telemedical systems are already being used, while new approaches are rapidly being developed in response to the crisis. However, the extent of the current implementation within different health care settings, the user’s acceptance and perception, as well as the hindering technical and regulatory obstacles remain unclear. ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to assess the current status quo of the availability and routine use of telemedical solutions, user acceptance, and the subjectively perceived burdens on telemedical approaches. Furthermore, we seek to assess the perception of public information quality among professional groups and their preferred communication channels. MethodsA national online survey was conducted on 14 consecutive days in March and April 2020, and distributed to doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals in the German language. ResultsA total of 2827 medical professionals participated in the study. Doctors accounted for 65.6% (n=1855) of the professionals, 29.5% (n=833) were nursing staff, and 4.9% (n=139) were identified as others such as therapeutic staff. A majority of participants rated the significance of telemedicine within the crisis as high (1065/2730, 39%) or neutral (n=720, 26.4%); however, there were significant differences between doctors and nurses (P=.01) as well as between the stationary sector compared to the ambulatory sector (P

Quality improvement in medicine is depending on measurement of relevant quality indicators. The quality indicators for intensive care medicine of the German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) from the year 2013 underwent a scheduled evaluation after three years. There were major changes in several indicators but also some indicators were changed only minimally. The focus on treatment processes like , , and , as well as the number of 10 indicators were not changed. Most topics remained except for which was introduced instead of . was added as an outcome indicator. These quality indicators are used in the peer review in intensive care, a method endorsed by the DIVI. A validity period of three years is planned for the quality indicators.

[english] Introduction: Quality improvement and safety in intensive care are rapidly evolving topics. However, there is no gold standard for assessing quality improvement in intensive care medicine yet. In 2007 a pilot project in German intensive care units (ICUs) started using voluntary peer reviews as an innovative tool for quality assessment and improvement. We describe the method of voluntary peer review and assessed its feasibility by evaluating anonymized peer review reports and analysed the thematic clusters highlighted in these reports.Methods: Retrospective data analysis from 22 anonymous reports of peer reviews. All ICUs – representing over 300 patient beds – had undergone voluntary peer review. Data were retrieved from reports of peers of the review teams and representatives of visited ICUs. Data were analysed with regard to number of topics addressed and results of assessment questionnaires. Reports of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT reports) of these ICUs are presented. Results: External assessment of structure, process and outcome indicators revealed high percentages of adherence to predefined quality goals. In the SWOT reports 11 main thematic clusters were identified representative for common ICUs. 58.1% of mentioned topics covered personnel issues, team and communication issues as well as organisation and treatment standards. The most mentioned weaknesses were observed in the issues documentation/reporting, hygiene and ethics. We identified several unique patterns regarding quality in the ICU of which long-term personnel problems und lack of good reporting methods were most interestingConclusion: Voluntary peer review could be established as a feasible and valuable tool for quality improvement. Peer reports addressed common areas of interest in intensive care medicine in more detail compared to other methods like measurement of quality indicators.

[english] Quality indicators are key elements of quality management. The quality indicators for intensive care medicine of the German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) from the year 2010 were recently evaluated when their validity time expired after two years. Overall one indicator was replaced and further three were in part changed. The former indicator I “elevation of head of bed” was replaced by the indic “Daily multi-professional ward rounds with the documentation of daily therapy goals” and added to the indicator IV “Weaning and other measures to prevent ventilator associated pneumonias (short: Weaning/VAP Bundle)” (VAP = ventilator-associated pneumonia) which aims at the reduction of VAP incidence. The indicator VIII “Documentation of structured relative-/next-of-kin communication” was refined. The indic X “Direction of the ICU by a specially trained certified intensivist with no other clinical duties in a department” was also updated according to recent study results. These updated quality indicators are part of the Peer Review in intensive care medicine. The next update of the quality indicators is due in 2016.[german] Qualitätsindikatoren sind elementare Bestandteile des Qualitätsmanagements. Die Qualitätsindikatoren für die Intensivmedizin der Deutschen Interndisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensivmedizin (DIVI) aus dem Jahre 2010 sind nun im Rahmen der geplanten Geltungsdauer überarbeitet und angepasst worden. Insgesamt wurde ein Indikator ersetzt und drei weitere zum Teil wesentlich überarbeitet. Der alte Indikator I „Oberkörperhochlagerung“ wurde durch den Indikator „Tägliche multiprofessionelle, klinische Visite mit Dokumentation von Tageszielen“ ersetzt und in den neu geschaffenen Indikator IV „Weaning und Maßnahmen zur Vermeidung von ventilatorassoziierten Pneumonien (kurz: Weaning/VAP Bundle)“ (VAP = ventilator-assoziierte Pneumonie) integriert, der auf ein Verringerung der VAP-Inzidenz abzielt. Der Indikator VIII „Dokumentation von strukturierten Angehörigengesprächen“ wurde weiter präzisiert. Der Indikator X „Leitung der Intensivstation durch einen Facharzt mit Zusatzbezeichnung Intensivmedizin, der keine anderen klinischen Aufgaben hat“ anhand der aktuellen Studienlage ebenfalls präzisiert. Die aktualisierten Qualitätsindikatoren sind Bestandteil der intensivmedizinischen Peer Reviews. Ihre nächste Aktualisierung ist für das Jahr 2016 geplant.

BackgroundDipeptidyl peptidase 3 (DPP3) is a cytosolic enzyme involved in the degradation of various cardiovascular and endorphin mediators. High levels of circulating DPP3 (cDPP3) indicate a high risk of organ dysfunction and mortality in cardiogenic shock patients.MethodsThe aim was to assess relationships between cDPP3 during the initial intensive care unit (ICU) stay and short-term outcome in the AdrenOSS-1, a prospective observational multinational study in twenty-four ICU centers in five countries. AdrenOSS-1 included 585 patients admitted to the ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included organ failure as defined by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, organ support with focus on vasopressor/inotropic use and need for renal replacement therapy. cDPP3 levels were measured upon admission and 24 h later.ResultsMedian [IQR] cDPP3 concentration upon admission was 26.5 [16.2-40.4] ng/mL. Initial SOFA score was 7 [5-10], and 28-day mortality was 22%. We found marked associations between cDPP3 upon ICU admission and 28-day mortality (unadjusted standardized HR 1.8 [CI 1.6-2.1]; adjusted HR 1.5 [CI 1.3-1.8]) and between cDPP3 levels and change in renal and liver SOFA score (p = 0.0077 and 0.0009, respectively). The higher the initial cDPP3 was, the greater the need for organ support and vasopressors upon admission; the longer the need for vasopressor(s), mechanical ventilation or RRT and the higher the need for fluid load (all p  40.4 ng/mL upon admission, a decrease in cDPP3 below 40.4 ng/mL after 24 h was associated with an improvement of organ function at 48 h and better 28-day outcome. By contrast, persistently elevated cDPP3 at 24 h was associated with worsening organ function and high 28-day mortality.ConclusionsAdmission levels and rapid changes in cDPP3 predict outcome during sepsis. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02393781. Registered on March 19, 2015.

BackgroundAdrenomedullin (ADM) regulates vascular tone and endothelial permeability during sepsis. Levels of circulating biologically active ADM (bio-ADM) show an inverse relationship with blood pressure and a direct relationship with vasopressor requirement. In the present prospective observational multinational Adrenomedullin and Outcome in Sepsis and Septic Shock 1 (, AdrenOSS-1) study, we assessed relationships between circulating bio-ADM during the initial intensive care unit (ICU) stay and short-term outcome in order to eventually design a biomarker-guided randomized controlled trial.MethodsAdrenOSS-1 was a prospective observational multinational study. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included organ failure as defined by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, organ support with focus on vasopressor/inotropic use, and need for renal replacement therapy. AdrenOSS-1 included 583 patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis or septic shock.ResultsCirculating bio-ADM levels were measured upon admission and at day 2. Median bio-ADM concentration upon admission was 80.5 pg/ml [IQR 41.5-148.1 pg/ml]. Initial SOFA score was 7 [IQR 5-10], and 28-day mortality was 22%. We found marked associations between bio-ADM upon admission and 28-day mortality (unadjusted standardized HR 2.3 [CI 1.9-2.9]; adjusted HR 1.6 [CI 1.1-2.5]) and between bio-ADM levels and SOFA score (p < 0.0001). Need of vasopressor/inotrope, renal replacement therapy, and positive fluid balance were more prevalent in patients with a bio-ADM > 70 pg/ml upon admission than in those with bio-ADM ≤ 70 pg/ml. In patients with bio-ADM > 70 pg/ml upon admission, decrease in bio-ADM below 70 pg/ml at day 2 was associated with recovery of organ function at day 7 and better 28-day outcome (9.5% mortality). By contrast, persistently elevated bio-ADM at day 2 was associated with prolonged organ dysfunction and high 28-day mortality (38.1% mortality, HR 4.9, 95% CI 2.5-9.8).ConclusionsAdrenOSS-1 shows that early levels and rapid changes in bio-ADM estimate short-term outcome in sepsis and septic shock. These data are the backbone of the design of the biomarker-guided AdrenOSS-2 trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02393781 . Registered on March 19, 2015.

IntroductionSepsis is the leading cause of acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients. The Kidney in Sepsis and Septic Shock (Kid-SSS) study evaluated the value of proenkephalin A 119-159 (penkid)-a sensitive biomarker of glomerular function, drawn within 24 hours upon intensive care unit (ICU) admission and analyzed using a chemiluminescence immunoassay-for kidney events in sepsis and septic shock.MethodsThe Kid-SSS study was a substudy of Adrenomedullin and Outcome in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock (AdrenOSS) (NCT02393781), a prospective, observational, multinational study including 583 patients admitted to the intensive care unit with sepsis or septic shock and a validation cohort of 525 patients from the French and euRopean Outcome reGistry in Intensive Care Units (FROG-ICU) study. The primary endpoint was major adverse kidney events (MAKEs) at day 7, composite of death, renal replacement therapy, and persistent renal dysfunction. The secondary endpoints included AKI, transient AKI, worsening renal function (WRF), and 28-day mortality.ResultsMedian age was 66 years (interquartile range 55-75), and 28-day mortality was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19%-25%). Of the patients, 293 (50.3%) were in shock upon ICU admission. Penkid was significantly elevated in patients with MAKEs, persistent AKI, and WRF (median = 65 [IQR = 45-106] vs. 179 [114-242]; 53 [39-70] vs. 133 [79-196] pmol/l; and 70 [47-121] vs. 174 [93-242] pmol/l, all P < 0.0001), also after adjustment for confounding factors (adjusted odds ratio = 3.3 [95% CI = 1.8-6.0], 3.9 [95% CI = 2.1-7.2], and 3.4 [95% CI = 1.9-6.2], all P

Purpose Investigate safety and tolerability of adrecizumab, a humanized monoclonal adrenomedullin antibody, in septic shock patients with high adrenomedullin. Methods Phase-2a, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled biomarker-guided trial with a single infusion of adrecizumab (2 or 4 mg/kg b.w.) compared to placebo. Patients with adrenomedullin above 70 pg/mL, < 12 h of vasopressor start for septic shock were eligible. Randomization was 1:1:2. Primary safety (90-day mortality, treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE)) and tolerability (drug interruption, hemodynamics) endpoints were recorded. Efficacy endpoints included the Sepsis Support Index (SSI, reflecting ventilator- and shock-free days alive), change in Sequential-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and 28-day mortality. Results 301 patients were enrolled (median time of 8.5 h after vasopressor start). Adrecizumab was well tolerated (one interruption, no hemodynamic alteration) with no differences in frequency and severity in TEAEs between treatment arms (TEAE of grade 3 or higher: 70.5% in the adrecizumab group and 71.1% in the placebo group) nor in 90-day mortality. Difference in change in SSI between adrecizumab and placebo was 0.72 (CI -1.93-0.49, p = 0.24). Among various secondary endpoints, delta SOFA score (defined as maximum versus minimum SOFA) was more pronounced in the adrecizumab combined group compared to placebo [difference at 0.76 (95% CI 0.18-1.35); p = 0.007]. 28-day mortality in the adrecizumab group was 23.9% and 27.7% in placebo with a hazard ratio of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.53-1.31, log-rank p = 0.44). Conclusions Overall, we successfully completed a randomized trial evaluating selecting patients for enrolment who had a disease-related biomarker. There were no overt signals of harm with using two doses of the adrenomedullin antibody adrecizumab; however, further randomized controlled trials are required to confirm efficacy and safety of this agent in septic shock patients., Author(s): Pierre-François Laterre [sup.1], Peter Pickkers [sup.2], Gernot Marx [sup.3], Xavier Wittebole [sup.4], Ferhat Meziani [sup.5] [sup.6], Thierry Dugernier [sup.7], Vincent Huberlant [sup.8], Tobias Schuerholz [sup.9], Bruno François [sup.10], Jean-Baptiste [...]