Caring for Critically Ill Patients with the ABCDEF Bundle: Results of the ICU Liberation Collaborative in Over 15,000 Adults.

OBJECTIVE: Decades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative. SETTING: 68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period. PATIENTS: 15,226 adults with at least one ICU day. INTERVENTIONS: We defined ABCDEF bundle performance (our main exposure) in two ways: 1) complete performance (patient received every eligible bundle element on any given day) and 2) proportional performance (percentage of eligible bundle elements performed on any given day). We explored the association between complete and proportional ABCDEF bundle performance and three sets of outcomes: patient-related (mortality, ICU and hospital discharge), symptom-related (mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium, pain, restraint use), and system-related (ICU readmission, discharge destination). All models were adjusted for a minimum of 18 a priori determined potential confounders. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Complete ABCDEF bundle performance was associated with lower likelihood of seven outcomes: hospital death within 7 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.17-0.62), next-day mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.28; CI, 0.22-0.36), coma (AOR, 0.35; CI, 0.22-0.56), delirium (AOR, 0.60; CI, 0.49-0.72), physical restraint use (AOR, 0.37; CI, 0.30-0.46), ICU readmission (AOR, 0.54; CI, 0.37-0.79), and discharge to a facility other than home (AOR, 0.64; CI, 0.51-0.80). There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ABCDEF bundle performance showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes including survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma, delirium, restraint-free care, ICU readmissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition.

Improving Health Care for Critically Ill Patients Using an Evidence-Based Collaborative Approach to ABCDEF Bundle Dissemination and Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) often experience pain, oversedation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, delirium, and weakness. These conditions are important in that they often lead to protracted physical, neurocognitive, and mental health sequelae now termed postintensive care syndrome. Changing current ICU practice will not only require the adoption of evidence-based interventions but the development of effective and reliable teams to support these new practices. OBJECTIVES: To build on the success of bundled care and bridge an ongoing evidence-practice gap, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) recently launched the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative. The Collaborative aimed to foster the bedside application of the SCCM's Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this paper is to describe the history of the Collaborative, the evidence-based implementation strategies used to foster change and teamwork, and the performance and outcome metrics used to monitor progress. METHODS: Collaborative participants were required to attend four in-person meetings, monthly colearning calls, database training sessions, an e-Community listserv, and select in-person site visits. Teams submitted patient-level data and completed pre- and postimplementation questionnaires focused on the assessment of teamwork and collaboration, work environment, and overall ICU care. Faculty shared the evidence used to derive each bundle element as well as team-based implementation strategies for improvement and sustainment. RESULTS: Retention in the Collaborative was high, with 67 of 69 adult and eight of nine pediatric ICUs fully completing the program. Baseline and prospective data were collected on over 17,000 critically ill patients. A variety of evidence-based professional behavioral change interventions and novel implementation techniques were utilized and shared among Collaborative members. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Hospitals and health systems can use the Collaborative structure, strategies, and tools described in this paper to help successfully implement the ABCDEF bundle in their ICUs.

Defining the Time-limited Trial for Patients with Critical Illness: An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

In critical care, the specific, structured approach to patient care known as a "time-limited trial" has been promoted in the literature to help patients, surrogate decision makers, and clinicians navigate consequential decisions about life-sustaining therapy in the face of uncertainty. Despite promotion of the time-limited trial approach, a lack of consensus about its definition and essential elements prevents optimal clinical use and rigorous evaluation of its impact. The objectives of this American Thoracic Society Workshop Committee were to establish a consensus definition of a time-limited trial in critical care, identify the essential elements for conducting a time-limited trial, and prioritize directions for future work. We achieved these objectives through a structured search of the literature, a modified Delphi process with 100 interdisciplinary and interprofessional stakeholders, and iterative committee discussions. We conclude that a time-limited trial for patients with critical illness is a collaborative plan among clinicians and a patient and/or their surrogate decision makers to use life-sustaining therapy for a defined duration, after which the patient's response to therapy informs the decision to continue care directed toward recovery, transition to care focused exclusively on comfort, or extend the trial's duration. The plan's 16 essential elements follow four sequential phases: consider, plan, support, and reassess. We acknowledge considerable gaps in evidence about the impact of time-limited trials and highlight a concern that if inadequately implemented, time-limited trials may perpetuate unintended harm. Future work is needed to better implement this defined, specific approach to care in practice through a person-centered equity lens and to evaluate its impact on patients, surrogates, and clinicians.

ICU early mobilization: from recommendation to implementation at three medical centers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast the process used to implement an early mobility program in ICUs at three different medical centers and to assess their impact on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. DESIGN: Three ICU early mobilization quality improvement projects are summarized utilizing the Institute for Healthcare Improvement framework of Plan-Do-Study-Act. INTERVENTION: Each of the three ICU early mobilization programs required an interprofessional team-based approach to plan, educate, and implement the ICU early mobility program. Champions from each profession-nursing, physical therapy, physician, and respiratory care-were identified to facilitate changes in ICU culture and clinical practice and to identify and address barriers to early mobility program implementation at each institution. SETTING: The medical ICU at Wake Forest University, the medical ICU at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and the mixed medical-surgical ICU at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center. RESULTS: Establishing an ICU early mobilization quality improvement program resulted in a reduced ICU and hospital length of stay at all three institutions and decreased rates of delirium and the need for sedation for the patients enrolled in the Johns Hopkins ICU early mobility program. CONCLUSION: Instituting a planned, structured ICU early mobility quality improvement project can result in improved outcomes and reduced costs for ICU patients across healthcare systems.

Implementing the ABCDEF Bundle: Top 8 Questions Asked During the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative.

The ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment) improves intensive care unit patient-centered outcomes and promotes interprofessional teamwork and collaboration. The Society of Critical Care Medicine recently completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, multicenter, national quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies to promote effective adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this article is to describe 8 of the most frequently asked questions during the Collaborative and to provide practical advice from leading experts to other institutions implementing the ABCDEF bundle.

Common Challenges to Effective ABCDEF Bundle Implementation: The ICU Liberation Campaign Experience.

Although growing evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of the ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment), intensive care unit providers often struggle with how to reliably and consistently incorporate this interprofessional, evidence-based intervention into everyday clinical practice. Recently, the Society of Critical Care Medicine completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, nationwide, multicenter quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies and tracked key performance metrics to overcome barriers to ABCDEF bundle adoption. The purpose of this article is to discuss some of the most challenging implementation issues that Collaborative teams experienced, and to provide some practical advice from leading experts on ways to overcome these barriers.

Physical therapist-established intensive care unit early mobilization program: quality improvement project for critical care at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Long-term weakness and disability are common after an intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Usual care in the ICU prevents most patients from receiving preventative early mobilization. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to describe a quality improvement project established by a physical therapist at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center from 2009 to 2011. The goal of the program was to reduce patients' ICU length of stay by increasing the number of patients in the ICU receiving physical therapy and decreasing the time from ICU admission to physical therapy initiation. DESIGN: This study was a 9-month retrospective analysis of a quality improvement project. METHODS: An interprofessional ICU Early Mobilization Group established and promoted guidelines for mobilizing patients in the ICU. A physical therapist was dedicated to a 16-bed medical-surgical ICU to provide physical therapy to selected patients within 48 hours of ICU admission. Patients receiving early physical therapy intervention in the ICU in 2010 were compared with patients receiving physical therapy under usual care practice in the same ICU in 2009. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2010, the number of patients receiving physical therapy in the ICU increased from 179 to 294. The median times (interquartile ranges) from ICU admission to physical therapy evaluation were 3 days (9 days) in 2009 and 1 day (2 days) in 2010. The ICU length of stay decreased by 2 days, on average, and the percentage of ambulatory patients discharged to home increased from 55% to 77%. LIMITATIONS: This study relied upon the retrospective analysis of data from 6 collectors, and the intervention lacked physical therapy coverage for 7 days per week. CONCLUSIONS: The improvements in outcomes demonstrated the value and feasibility of a physical therapist-led early mobilization program.