A quality improvement project to improve the identification and management of delirium.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce delirium burden through screening, identification, and prevention is considered one of the major public health priorities of the last decade. In 2017, an audit of delirium screening in our unit revealed suboptimum assessment of our patients, with compliance with the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessments highly variable and ad hoc, and sometimes not at all. A separate sedation audit also revealed that our sedation practices did not align with current critical care guidelines emphasizing light sedation strategies. AIM: The aim of this project was to develop resources to educate the unit on delirium, improve the management of sedation with a sedation algorithm, formalize the elements of delirium prevention and care into a delirium pathway, and improve the compliance with delirium screening. METHODS: We developed a delirium clinical pathway and sedation algorithm, a delirium resource book, and an online educational module on the district health board (DHB) intranet. We provided extensive teaching of all these resources over delirium month. We used pre- and post-auditing of sedation practices and delirium screening compliance to inform the success of this project. RESULTS: Of the 140 members of staff, 85% (n = 120) received delirium education. In 2018/2019, 84% of 145 patient charts reached the unit standard of four to six hourly CAM-ICU assessments compared with 45% in 2017. The sedation audit revealed a slight improvement in the trend towards lighter sedation, with Richmond Agitation Sedation Scoring (RASS) scores reflecting light sedation, increasing from a mean of 31% in 2017 to 41% in 2019 from 41 patient charts. CONCLUSIONS: This project provides a useful framework to enable future quality improvement work around delirium and sedation management. The clinical pathway and sedation algorithm have been a useful tool to introduce to the unit as a way of formalizing the elements of delirium care and assessment.

Oral intake evaluation in patients following critical illness: an ICU cohort study.

Timely and adequate nutrition improves health outcomes for the critically ill patient. Despite clinical guidelines recommending early oral nutrition, survivors of critical illness experience significant nutritional deficits. This cohort study evaluates the oral nutrition intake in intensive care unit (ICU) patients who have experienced recent critical illness. The oral nutrition intake of a convenience sample of ICU patients post-critical illness was observed during a 1-month period. Data pertaining to both the amount of oral nutrition intake and factors impacting optimal oral nutrition intake were collected and analysed. Inadequate oral intake was identified in 62% of the 79 patients assessed (n = 49). This was noted early in the ICU stay, around day 1-2, for most of the patients. A significant proportion (25%) of patients remained in the hospital with poor oral intake that persisted beyond ICU day 5. Unsurprisingly, these were the patients who had longer ICU stays. Critical illness weakness was a factor in the assessment of poor oral intake. To conclude, patients who have experienced critical illness also experience suboptimal oral nutrition. The three key factors that were identified as impacting optimal oral nutrition were early removal of nasogastric tubes, critical illness weakness and poor appetite post-critical illness. Seven key recommendations are made based on this cohort study. These recommendations are related to patient assessment, monitoring, documentation and future guidelines. Future research opportunities are highlighted, including the investigation of strategies to improve the transition of patients' post-critical illness to oral nutrition.

What are the long-term outcomes for New Zealand survivors of critical illness?

The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn considerable attention to the survival journey and recovery of patients post critical illness. A decade ago, the Society of Critical Care Medicine described the prolonged adverse health effects after a critical illness as the "post intensive care syndrome" (PICS). Evidence is emerging from Australia around the impact critical illness has on disability, mental health, cognitive function and health-related quality of life for patients this side of the world. For example, one study has shown that disability was highly prevalent in survivor's six-month post hospital discharge, with 50% having mild disability and 25% with moderate to severe disability. Currently it is unknown what the survival journey is like for patients in New Zealand; how we should best measure outcomes for our population; and how we should support Maori and Pasifika patients post critical illness. Research is needed in every aspect of PICS in New Zealand. In 2022, the much-anticipated Survivorship of Patients Post Long Intensive Care Stay, Exploration/Experience in a New Zealand Cohort (SPLIT ENZ) study will explore important aspects of recovery and long-term outcomes for New Zealand survivors of critical illness.