Airway injury from the presence of endotracheal tubes and the association with subglottic secretion drainage: a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Laryngeal and tracheal injuries are known complications of endotracheal intubation. Endotracheal tubes (ETTs) with subglottic suction devices (SSDs) are commonly used in the critical care setting. There is concern that herniation of tissue into the suction port of these devices may lead to tracheal injury resulting in serious clinical consequences such as tracheal stenosis. We aimed to describe the type and location of tracheal injuries seen in intubated critically ill patients and assess injuries at the suction port as well as in-hospital complications associated with those injuries. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of 57 critically ill patients admitted to a level 3 intensive care unit who were endotracheally intubated and underwent percutaneous tracheostomy. Investigators performed bronchoscopy and photographic evaluation of the airway during the percutaneous tracheostomy procedure to evaluate tracheal and laryngeal injury. RESULTS: Forty-one (72%) patients intubated with ETT with SSD and sixteen (28%) patients with standard ETT were included in the study. Forty-seven (83%) patients had a documented airway injury ranging from hyperemia to deep ulceration of the mucosa. A common tracheal injury was at the site of the tracheal cuff. Injury at the site of the subglottic suction device was seen in 5/41 (12%) patients. There were no in-hospital complications. CONCLUSIONS: Airway injury was common in critically ill patients following endotracheal intubation, and tracheal injury commonly occurred at the site of the endotracheal cuff. Injury occurred at the site of the subglottic suction port in some patients although the clinical consequences of these injuries remain unclear.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les lésions laryngées et trachéales sont des complications connues de l'intubation endotrachéale. Les sondes endotrachéales (SET) avec dispositifs d'aspiration sous-glottiques (DASG) sont couramment utilisées aux soins intensifs. On craint qu'une hernie tissulaire dans l'orifice d'aspiration de ces dispositifs n'entraîne des lésions trachéales, résultant en de graves conséquences cliniques telles qu'une sténose trachéale. Nous avons cherché à décrire le type et l'emplacement des lésions trachéales observées chez les patients gravement malades intubés et à évaluer les lésions au port d'aspiration ainsi que les complications hospitalières associées à ces lésions. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené une étude observationnelle prospective auprès de 57 patients gravement malades admis dans une unité de soins intensifs de niveau 3 qui ont été intubés par voie endotrachéale et ont subi une trachéostomie percutanée. Les chercheurs ont réalisé une bronchoscopie et une évaluation photographique des voies aériennes au cours de la trachéostomie percutanée afin d'évaluer les lésions trachéales et laryngées. RéSULTATS: Quarante et un (72 %) intubés par SET avec DASG et seize (28 %) patients avec SET standard ont été inclus dans l'étude. Quarante-sept (83 %) patients ont présenté une lésion documentée des voies aériennes allant de l'hyperémie à l'ulcération profonde de la muqueuse. Une lésion trachéale commune était localisée sur le site du ballonnet trachéal. Une lésion au site du dispositif d'aspiration sous-glottique a été observée chez 5/41 (12 %) patients. Il n'y a pas eu de complications à l'hôpital. CONCLUSION: Les lésions des voies aériennes étaient fréquentes chez les patients gravement malades après une intubation endotrachéale, et les lésions trachéales se produisaient généralement au site du ballonnet endotrachéal. Des lésions se sont produites au site de l'orifice d'aspiration sous-glottique chez certains patients, bien que les conséquences cliniques de ces lésions restent incertaines.

Non-essential blood tests in the intensive care unit: a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Non-essential blood testing in the acute care setting can be a prominent source of morbidity, patient discomfort, increased workload for the healthcare provider, and wasteful spending. The magnitude of such non-essential blood testing has not been well described. We aimed to measure the extent of unnecessary blood testing in a 33-bed intensive care unit (ICU) at a tertiary-care teaching hospital in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Over a period of four weeks, all ICU attending physicians were asked to select, from a comprehensive list, blood tests that they deemed essential to the appropriate care for each of their patients on the following day. The actual tests processed on the following day were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to determine what proportion of all processed tests were deemed essential blood tests. The association between patient characteristics and the total cost of unnecessary tests was assessed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the Spearman correlation coefficient, as appropriate. RESULTS: Nine attending physicians provided input for a total of 81 patient days. In 65 (80%) of these days, at least one test was considered non-essential. Physicians deemed only 338 (48.7%) of 694 processed blood tests as essential, which amounted to $2,243.41 (46.0%) out of an overall cost of $4,882.11. Patients' age, sex, mechanical ventilation status, and treatment with vasoactive drugs on the study day were not associated with the number of non-essential tests. CONCLUSIONS: Attending physicians deemed a substantial proportion of the blood tests processed in a tertiary care ICU setting as unnecessary. Furthermore, the non-essential tests incurred substantial additional cost. Further work is required to gain a better understanding of the underlying factors contributing to these wasteful practices.

Removing nonessential central venous catheters: evaluation of a quality improvement intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Nonessential central venous catheters (CVCs) should be removed promptly to prevent adverse events. Little is known about effective strategies to achieve this goal. The present study evaluates the effectiveness of a quality improvement (QI) initiative to remove nonessential CVCs in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed in two ICUs following a QI intervention that included a daily checklist, education, and reminders. During 28 consecutive days, all CVCs were identified and the presence of ongoing indications for CVC placement was recorded. The proportions of nonessential CVCs and CVC days were compared with pre-intervention proportions and between the participating units. Rates of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) were measured separately through Ontario's Critical Care Information System. RESULTS: One hundred and ten patients and 159 CVCs were reviewed. Eighty-eight (11%) of 820 catheter days showed no apparent indication for CVC placement, and compared with the pre-intervention period, the proportion of patients with any number of nonessential CVC days decreased from 51% to 26% (relative risk 0.51; 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.74; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the proportion of nonessential catheter days between participating units. Reported rates of CLABSI decreased substantially during the intervention. DISCUSSION: A checklist tool supported by a multifaceted QI intervention effectively ensured prompt removal of nonessential CVCs in two ICUs.

Handover patterns: an observational study of critical care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Handover (or 'handoff') is the exchange of information between health professionals that accompanies the transfer of patient care. This process can result in adverse events. Handover 'best practices', with emphasis on standardization, have been widely promoted. However, these recommendations are based mostly on expert opinion and research on medical trainees. By examining handover communication of experienced physicians, we aim to inform future research, education and quality improvement. Thus, our objective is to describe handover communication patterns used by attending critical care physicians in an academic centre and to compare them with currently popular, standardized schemes for handover communication. METHODS: Prospective, observational study using video recording in an academic intensive care unit in Ontario, Canada. Forty individual patient handovers were randomly selected out of 10 end-of-week handover sessions of attending physicians. Two coders independently reviewed handover transcripts documenting elements of three communication schemes: SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations); SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan); and a standard medical admission note. Frequency and extent of questions asked by incoming physicians were measured as well. Analysis consisted of descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Mean (± standard deviation) duration of patient-specific handovers was 2 min 58 sec (± 57 sec). The majority of handovers' content consisted of recent and current patient status. The remainder included physicians' interpretations and advice. Questions posed by the incoming physicians accounted for 5.8% (± 3.9%) of the handovers' content. Elements of all three standardized communication schemes appeared repeatedly throughout the handover dialogs with no consistent pattern. For example, blocks of SOAP's Assessment appeared 5.2 (± 3.0) times in patient handovers; they followed Objective blocks in only 45.9% of the opportunities and preceded Plan in just 21.8%. Certain communication elements were occasionally absent. For example, SBAR's Recommendation and admission note information about the patient's Past Medical History were absent from 22 (55.0%) and 20 (50.0%), respectively, of patient handovers. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical handover practice of faculty-level critical care physicians did not conform to any of the three predefined structuring schemes. Further research is needed to examine whether alternative approaches to handover communication can be identified and to identify features of high-quality handover communication.

Observational study of agreement between attending and trainee physicians on the surprise question: "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?"

BACKGROUND: Optimal end-of-life care requires identifying patients that are near the end of life. The extent to which attending physicians and trainee physicians agree on the prognoses of their patients is unknown. We investigated agreement between attending and trainee physician on the surprise question: "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?", a question intended to assess mortality risk and unmet palliative care needs. METHODS: This was a multicentre prospective cohort study of general internal medicine patients at 7 tertiary academic hospitals in Ontario, Canada. General internal medicine attending and senior trainee physician dyads were asked the surprise question for each of the patients for whom they were responsible. Surprise question response agreement was quantified by Cohen's kappa using Bayesian multilevel modeling to account for clustering by physician dyad. Mortality was recorded at 12 months. RESULTS: Surprise question responses encompassed 546 patients from 30 attending-trainee physician dyads on academic general internal medicine teams at 7 tertiary academic hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Patients had median age 75 years (IQR 60-85), 260 (48%) were female, and 138 (25%) were dependent for some or all activities of daily living. Trainee and attending physician responses agreed in 406 (75%) patients with adjusted Cohen's kappa of 0.54 (95% credible interval 0.41 to 0.66). Vital status was confirmed for 417 (76%) patients of whom 160 (38% of 417) had died. Using a response of "No" to predict 12-month mortality had positive likelihood ratios of 1.84 (95% CrI 1.55 to 2.22, trainee physicians) and 1.51 (95% CrI 1.30 to 1.72, attending physicians), and negative likelihood ratios of 0.31 (95% CrI 0.17 to 0.48, trainee physicians) and 0.25 (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.46, attending physicians). CONCLUSION: Trainee and attending physician responses to the surprise question agreed in 54% of cases after correcting for chance agreement. Physicians had similar discriminative accuracy; both groups had better accuracy predicting which patients would survive as opposed to which patients would die. Different opinions of a patient's prognosis may contribute to confusion for patients and missed opportunities for engagement with palliative care services.

Evaluation of unnecessary central venous catheters in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Central venous catheters are used commonly in critical care. Evidence-based practices to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections have been widely promoted. One such practice includes assessing the need for central venous catheters on a daily basis and removing those found to be unnecessary. However, little is known about the adherence to this recommendation. Our objective was to examine the prevalence of unnecessary central venous catheters in our intensive care units. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study during 28 consecutive days in two adult intensive care units at an academic medical centre. The principal investigator screened patients daily for the presence of non-tunnelled central venous catheters and assessed whether there was an indication for continued central catheterization. Patients under the age of 18 were excluded, as were those undergoing palliative care. Standardized indications were abstracted from the patient's chart, and the patient's primary nurse was interviewed if there was no indication for central venous catheterization in the chart. If there were multiple catheters or indications, the most appropriate indication was recorded. The end point was to establish whether a patient had an appropriate indication for central catheterization rather than to attribute an indication to each catheter. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients experienced a total of 614 days with at least one central venous catheter. Forty-one (50.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 39.9-61.3%) of these patients had no indication on at least one central venous catheter day. Of all patient days with central venous catheters, 170 (27.7%; 95% CI, 19.5-37.9%) had no apparent indication. The proportion of patient days with central venous catheters without indication was 4.6 (95% CI, 2.6-8.2; P < 0.001) times greater in the level-2 unit than in the level-3 unit. DISCUSSION: In two academic adult intensive care units, a large proportion of patients with central venous catheters lacked an ongoing indication for their use during a significant period of time. Many patients were exposed to complications from unneeded catheters. Our findings will serve as a baseline for determining the success of quality-improvement interventions to prevent complications such as catheter-related infections in our program.

Essential and Nonessential Blood Testing in the Clinical Teaching Unit.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the essential and nonessential blood tests ordered on the internal medicine clinical teaching units (CTUs) at Kingston General Hospital. Our aim was to establish a baseline performance measure identifying appropriate use of laboratory tests that could be used to inform improvement over time. METHODS: For an 8-week period, 14 CTU attending physicians at Kingston General Hospital were surveyed. They were asked for each of their patients, "What blood tests do you consider to be essential for tomorrow morning to maintain appropriate care for this patient?" The following day, blood tests that were ordered were compared with the "essential" list previously given by the attending physicians. RESULTS: Of 291 processed blood tests, 148 (51%) had not been considered essential by attending physicians; of the 203 tests considered essential, 60 (30%) were not ordered. Total agreement between "essential" and processed tests was poor (κ = 0.51; confidence interval, 0.45-0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate use of blood tests for CTU patients is common. Quality improvement initiatives should aim to address the lack of observed consensus between attending physicians' views and the ordered tests and to streamline decision-making and the ordering/communication processes. Clinical standards and guidelines regarding ordering of laboratory tests should be clearly defined.

Prolonged time to alarm in infusion devices operated at low flow rates.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the time to occlusion alarm for peristaltic infusion devices used in Toronto adult critical care units. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Biomedical engineering departments of four Toronto teaching hospitals. SUBJECTS: Twenty peristaltic infusion devices (five Sigma 8000-plus, five Graseby 3000, five Baxter Colleague, and five Alaris 7230B). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Time to occlusion alarm at flow rates of 2, 10, and 100 mL/hr at a full range of available pressure thresholds for occlusion detection, and with commonly used tubing sets. MAIN RESULTS: At default (mid-range) pressure thresholds, mean (SD) time to occlusion alarm was 0.3 (0.1) min at a flow rate of 100 mL/hr, 2.3 (0.5) min at a flow rate of 10 mL/hr, and 11.7 (3.1) min at a flow rate of 2 mL/hr. CONCLUSIONS: Time to occlusion alarm in peristaltic infusion devices is long at low flow rates. Patients receiving important medications with short half-lives at low flow rates could experience clinically important interruptions in treatment. Time to occlusion alarm at high flow rates is short, which could lead to excessive alarms and "alarm mistrust" by clinical staff.

The prevalence of medical error related to end-of-life communication in Canadian hospitals: results of a multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: In the hospital setting, inadequate engagement between healthcare professionals and seriously ill patients and their families regarding end-of-life decisions is common. This problem may lead to medical orders for life-sustaining treatments that are inconsistent with patient preferences. The prevalence of this patient safety problem has not been previously described. METHODS: Using data from a multi-institutional audit, we quantified the mismatch between patients' and family members' expressed preferences for care and orders for life-sustaining treatments. We recruited seriously ill, elderly medical patients and/or their family members to participate in this audit. We considered it a medical error if a patient preferred not to be resuscitated and there were orders to undergo resuscitation (overtreatment), or if a patient preferred resuscitation (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPR) and there were orders not to be resuscitated (undertreatment). RESULTS: From 16 hospitals in Canada, 808 patients and 631 family members were included in this study. When comparing expressed preferences and documented orders for use of CPR, 37% of patients experienced a medical error. Very few patients (8, 2%) expressed a preference for CPR and had CPR withheld in their documented medical orders (Undertreatment). Of patients who preferred not to have CPR, 174 (35%) had orders to receive it (Overtreatment). There was considerable variability in overtreatment rates across sites (range: 14-82%). Patients who were frail were less likely to be overtreated; patients who did not have a participating family member were more likely to be overtreated. CONCLUSIONS: Medical errors related to the use of life-sustaining treatments are very common in internal medicine wards. Many patients are at risk of receiving inappropriate end-of-life care.

Brief history of patient safety culture and science.

The science of safety is well established in such disciplines as the automotive and aviation industry. In this brief history of safety science as it pertains to patient care, we review remote and recent publications that have guided the maturation of this field that has particular relevance to the complex structure of systems, personnel, and therapies involved in caring for the critically ill.

Barriers to goals of care discussions with seriously ill hospitalized patients and their families: a multicenter survey of clinicians.

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.

Creating patient safety capacity in a nation's health system: A comparison between Israel and Canada.

Injuries to patients by the healthcare system (i.e., adverse events) are common and their impact on individuals and systems is considerable. Over the last decade, extensive efforts have been made worldwide to improve patient safety. Given the complexity and extent of the activities required to address the issue, coordinating and organizing them at a national level is likely beneficial. Whereas some capacity and expertise already exist in Israel, there is a considerable gap that needs to be filled. In this paper two countries, Canada and Israel, are examined and some of the essential steps for any country are considered. Possible immediate next steps for Israel are suggested.

Increasing patient safety event reporting in 2 intensive care units: a prospective interventional study.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to increase the reporting of patient safety events and to enhance report analysis and responsive action. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, interventional study in 2 adult intensive care units (ICUs) in an academic center was used. A paper-based reporting system, adapted from a previously reported intervention, was introduced. A multifaceted approach, including education, reminders, regular updates, personal and group feedback, and weekly leadership rounds, was led by a patient safety committee. Committee members reviewed the reports and initiated solutions as required. RESULTS: During the first year, a total of 332 safety events were reported using the new system, reflecting a significant increase in total reporting (10.3/1000 patient days preintervention to 34.5/1000 patient days postintervention; rate ratio, 3.35; 95% confidence interval, 2.23-5.04). Most reports were submitted by nurses (nurses, 75.3%; physicians, 10.5%; other workers, 7.8%). Overall reported events per 1000 patient days differed by unit (level 3 ICU, 44.1; level 2 ICU, 24.9; P < .001). Several system-based interventions were initiated in the ICUs to address reported safety hazards. CONCLUSIONS: After the introduction of this new approach, reporting rates have increased significantly throughout the first year. Differences in reporting rates among workers and units may reveal priorities and barriers to reporting. The integrated approach facilitated prompt response to selected reports.

Knowledge translation in critical care: factors associated with prescription of commonly recommended best practices for critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To describe prescription rates of commonly recommended best practices (clinical interventions with a strong base of evidence supporting their implementation) for critically ill patients and determine factors associated with increased rates of prescription. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: A university-affiliated medical-surgical-trauma intensive care unit over a 1-yr period. PATIENTS: One hundred randomly selected critically ill patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among the best practices studied, there was great variability in the proportion of patients eligible (median 36.5%, range 10% to 100%) and the proportion without contraindication (32.5%, range 10% to 86%) for each practice. The median rate of prescription of best practices for eligible patients was 56.5%, with a range from 8% to 95%. There was greater prescription of best practices when standard admission orders included an option to prescribe them (p = .048). Among those practices with standard admission orders, there was greatest prescription for practices additionally having a specialty consultation service (p = .004). There was an inverse association between severity of illness and prescription of best practices (p = .001): Sicker patients were less likely to be prescribed best practices. CONCLUSIONS: There may be substantial variability in the acceptance and prescription of commonly recommended best practices for critically ill patients. Standard order sets and focused specialty consultation may improve knowledge translation and prescription of best practice.