Intensive Care Unit Staff Perceptions of Redeployment to Other Clinical Areas: A Mixed Method Approach.

Aim: The study aimed to explore the perceptions of intensive care unit staff deployed to other clinical areas. It also aimed to identify challenges that the staff face during their redeployment. Design: A mixed method study. Method: 40 participants (nurses and healthcare assistants) completed an anonymous online questionnaire, and five participants (nurses) participated in one-to-one semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling from the selected ICU/HDU. Results: Content analysis of the data revealed three major themes: "Negative feelings of redeployment", "Positive feelings of redeployment" and "Visible and Structured leadership interventions". Results indicate that ICU nursing management needs to make some additional efforts and implement the study recommendations to improve the overall perception and experience of ICU/HDU staff redeployment. Public Contribution: This research will create insight into the redeployment of intensive care unit staff to other clinical areas. Furthermore, it will add value to patient safety and improve institutional healthcare policies.

Comparing the use of midline catheters versus peripherally inserted central catheters for patients requiring peripherally compatible therapies: A pilot randomised controlled trial (the compact trial).

BACKGROUND: Midline catheter (MC) use has increased in acute-care settings, particularly for patients with difficult venous access or requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for up-to 14 days. Our aim was to assess feasibility and generate clinical data comparing MCs with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs). METHODS: A two-arm parallel group pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), comparing MCs with PICCs, was conducted in a large tertiary hospital in Queensland between September 2020 and January 2021. The primary outcome was study feasibility, measured against rates of eligibility (>75%), consent (>90%), attrition (<5%); protocol adherence (>90%) and missing data (<5%). The primary clinical outcome was all-cause device failure. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were recruited. The median patient age was 59-62 years; most patients were overweight/obese, with ≥2 co-morbidities. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: The eligibility and protocol adherence criteria were not met; of 159 screened patients, only 25 (16%) were eligible, and three patients did not receive their allocated intervention post-randomisation (88% adherence). All-cause failure occurred in two patients allocated to MC (20%) and one PICC (8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that a fully powered RCT testing MCs compared with PICCs is not currently feasible in our setting. We recommend a robust process evaluation before the introduction of MCs into clinical practice.

Safety and efficacy of midline catheters versus peripheral intravenous catheters: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite pervasive need for peripheral intravenous catheters, insertion is often difficult, and approximately two thirds fail prematurely. Midline catheters are an alternative long peripheral catheter, inserted in the upper arm, ideal for patients with difficult access. AIM: The aim of this study is to test feasibility of the protocol and compare the efficacy and safety of midline catheters to peripheral intravenous catheters. DESIGN: A parallel-group, pilot randomized controlled trial of adult medical/surgical hospitalized patients, from a single Australian referral hospital. METHODS: Participants with difficult vascular access (≤2 palpable veins) and/or anticipated ≥5 days of peripherally compatible intravenous therapy were recruited between May 2019 and March 2020. Participants were randomized to (1) peripheral intravenous catheter or (2) midline catheter. Primary feasibility outcome measured eligibility, recruitment, protocol adherence, retention and attrition. Primary clinical outcomes measured device insertion failure and post-insertion failure. RESULTS: In total, n = 143 participants (71 peripheral intravenous catheters and 72 midline catheters) were recruited; n = 139 were analysed. Most feasibility criteria were met. Peripheral intravenous catheters had shorter functional dwell time, with higher incidence of post-insertion failure compared to midline catheters. CONCLUSION: Midline catheters appear to be superior for patients with difficult vascular access or receiving prolonged intravenous therapy; a large, multi-centre trial to confirm findings is feasible.

Becoming the temporary surgeon: A grounded theory examination of anaesthetists performing emergency front of neck access in inter-disciplinary simulation-based training.

The time-critical 'can't intubate, can't oxygenate' [CICO] emergency post-induction of anaesthesia is rare, but one which, should it occur, requires Anaesthetists to perform rapid emergency front of neck access [FONA] to the trachea, restoring oxygenation, and preventing death or brain hypoxia. The UK Difficult Airway Society [DAS] has directed all Anaesthetists to be trained with surgical cricothyroidotomy [SCT] as the primary emergency FONA method, sometimes referred to as 'Cric' as a shorthand. We present a longitudinal analysis using a classical approach to Grounded Theory methodology of ten Specialist Trainee Anaesthetists' data during a 6-month training programme delivered jointly by Anaesthetists and Surgeons. We identified with a critical realist ontology and an objectivist epistemology meaning data interpretation was driven by participants' narratives and accepted as true accounts of their experience. Our theory comprises three themes: 'Identity as an Anaesthetist'; 'The Role of a Temporary Surgeon'; and 'Training to Reconcile Identities', whereby training facilitated the psychological transition from a 'bloodless Doctor' (Anaesthetist) to becoming a 'temporary Surgeon'. The training programme enabled Specialist Trainees to move between the role of control and responsibility (Identity as an Anaesthetist), through self-described 'failure' and into a role of uncertainty about one's own confidence and competence (The Role of a Temporary Surgeon), and then return to the Anaesthetist's role once the airway had been established. Understanding the complexity of an intervention and providing a better insight into the training needs of Anaesthetic trainees, via a Grounded Theory approach, allows us to evaluate training programmes against the recognised technical and non-technical needs of those being trained.

Performance of emergency surgical front of neck airway access by head and neck surgeons, general surgeons, or anaesthetists: an in situ simulation study.

BACKGROUND: The 'cannot intubate cannot oxygenate' (CICO) emergency requires urgent front of neck airway (FONA) access to prevent death. In cases reported to the 4th National Audit Project, the most successful FONA was a surgical technique, almost all of which were performed by surgeons. Subsequently, UK guidelines adopted surgical cricothyroidotomy as the preferred emergency surgical FONA technique. Despite regular skills-based training, anaesthetists may still be unwilling to perform an emergency surgical FONA. Consultant anaesthetists, head and neck surgeons, and general surgeons were compared in a high-fidelity simulated emergency. We hypothesised that head and neck surgeons would successfully execute emergency surgical FONA faster than anaesthetists and general surgeons. METHODS: We recruited 15 consultants from each specialty (total of 45) at a single tertiary care hospital in the UK. All agreed to participate in an in situ high-fidelity simulation of an 'anaesthetic emergency'. Participants were not told in advance that this would be a CICO scenario. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in total time to successful ventilation between anaesthetists, head and neck surgeons and general surgeons (median 86 vs 98 vs 126 s, respectively, P=0.078). Anaesthetists completed the emergency surgical FONA procedure significantly faster than general surgeons (median 50 vs 86 s, P=0.018). Despite this strong performance, qualitative data suggested some anaesthetists still believed 'surgeons' best placed to perform emergency surgical FONA in a genuine CICO situation. CONCLUSION: Anaesthetists regularly trained in emergency surgical FONA function at levels comparable with head and neck surgeons and should feel empowered to lead this procedure in the event of a CICO emergency.