In-House, Overnight Physician Staffing: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Canadian Adult ICUs.

OBJECTIVES: Overnight physician staffing in the ICU has been recommended by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Leapfrog Consortium. We conducted a survey to review practice in the current era and to compare this with results from a 2006 survey. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Canadian adult ICUs. PARTICIPANTS: ICU directors. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: A 29-question survey was sent to ICU directors describing overnight staffing by residents, fellows, nurse practitioners, and staff physicians, as well as duty duration, clinical responsibilities, and unit characteristics. We established contact with 122 ICU directors, of whom 107 (88%) responded. Of the 107 units, 60 (56%) had overnight in-house physicians. Compared with ICUs without overnight in-house physician coverage, ICUs with in-house physicians were in larger hospitals (p < 0.0001), had more beds (p < 0.0001), had more ventilated patients (p < 0.0001), and had more admissions (p < 0.0001). Overnight in-house physicians were first year residents (R1) in 20 of 60 (33%), second to fifth year residents (R2-R5) in 46 of 60 (77%), and Critical Care Medicine trainees in 19 of 60 (32%). Advanced practice nurses provided overnight coverage in four of 107 ICUs (4%). The most senior in-house physician was a staff physician in 12 of 60 ICUs (20%), a Critical Care Medicine trainee in 14 of 60 (23%), and a resident (R2-R5) in 20 of 60 (33%). The duration of overnight duty was on average 20-24 hours in 22 of 46 units (48%) with R2-R5 residents and 14 of 19 units (74%) covered by Critical Care Medicine trainees. CONCLUSIONS: Variability of in-house overnight physician presence in Canadian adult ICUs is linked to therapeutic complexity and unit characteristics and has not changed significantly over the decade since our 2006 survey. Additional evidence about patient and resident outcomes would better inform decisions to revise physician scheduling in Canadian ICUs.

Data initiatives supporting critical care research and quality improvement in Canada: an environmental scan and narrative review.

PURPOSE: Collection and analysis of health data are crucial to achieving high-quality clinical care, research, and quality improvement. This review explores existing hospital, regional, provincial and national data platforms in Canada to identify gaps and barriers, and recommend improvements for data science. SOURCE: The Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and the Canadian Critical Care Translational Biology Group undertook an environmental survey using list-identified names and keywords in PubMed and the grey literature, from the Canadian context. Findings were grouped into sections, corresponding to geography, purpose, and patient sub-group initiatives, using a narrative qualitative approach. Emerging themes, impressions, and recommendations towards improving data initiatives were generated. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In Canada, the Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database contains high-level clinical data on every adult and child discharged from acute care facilities; however, it does not contain data from Quebec, critical care-specific severity of illness risk-adjustment scores, physiologic data, or data pertaining to medication use. Provincially mandated critical care platforms in four provinces contain more granular data, and can be used to risk adjust and link to within-province data sets; however, no inter-provincial collaborative mechanism exists. There is very limited infrastructure to collect and link biological samples from critically ill patients nationally. Comprehensive international clinical data sets may inform future Canadian initiatives. CONCLUSION: Clinical and biological data collection among critically ill patients in Canada is not sufficiently coordinated, and lags behind other jurisdictions. An integrated and inclusive critical care data platform is a key clinical and scientific priority in Canada.

Above the GRADE: Evaluation of Guidelines in Critical Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVES: We examined recommendations within critical care guidelines to describe the pairing patterns for strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. We further identified recommendations where the reported strength of recommendation was strong while the reported quality of evidence was not high/moderate and then assessed whether such pairings were within five paradigmatic situations offered by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to justify such pairings. DATA SOURCES AND EXTRACTION: We identified all clinical critical care guidelines published online from 2011 to 2017 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine along with individual guidelines published by Surviving Sepsis Campaign, Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, and the Infectious Disease Society of America/American Thoracic Society. DATA SYNTHESIS: In all, 15 documents specifying 681 eligible recommendations demonstrated variation in strength of recommendation (strong n = 215 [31.6%], weak n = 345 [50.7%], none n = 121 [17.8%]) and in quality of evidence (high n = 41 [6.0%], moderate n = 151 [22.2%], low/very low n = 298 [43.8%], and Expert Consensus/none n = 191 [28.1%]). Strength of recommendation and quality of evidence were positively correlated (ρ = 0.66; p < 0.0001). Of 215 strong recommendations, 69 (32.1%) were discordantly paired with evidence other than high/moderate. Twenty-two of 69 (31.9%) involved Strong/Expert Consensus recommendations, a category discouraged by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Forty-seven of 69 recommendations (68.1%) were comprised of Strong/Low or Strong/Very Low variation requiring justification within five paradigmatic scenarios. Among distribution in the five paradigmatic scenarios of Strong/Low and Strong/Very Low recommendations, the most common paradigmatic scenario was life threatening situation (n = 20/47; 42.6%). Four Strong/Low or Strong/Very Low recommendations (4/47; 8.5%) were outside Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Among a large, diverse assembly of critical care guideline recommendations using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology, the strength of evidence of a recommendation was generally associated with the quality of evidence. However, strong recommendations were not infrequently made in the absence of high/moderate quality of evidence. To improve clarity and uptake, future guideline statements may specify why such pairings were made, avoid such pairings when outside of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria, and consider separate language for Expert Consensus recommendations (good practice statements).

Hospital and Intensive Care Unit Length of Stay for Injury Admissions: A Pan-Canadian Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the variation in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) for injury admissions across Canadian provinces and to evaluate the relative contribution of patient case mix and treatment-related factors (intensity of care, complications, and discharge delays) to explaining observed variations. BACKGROUND: Identifying unjustified interprovider variations in resource use and the determinants of such variations is an important step towards optimizing health care. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study on admissions for major trauma (injury severity score >12) to level I and II trauma centers across Canada (2006-2012). We used data from the Canadian National Trauma Registry linked to hospital discharge data to compare risk-adjusted hospital and ICU LOS across provinces. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted hospital LOS was shortest in Ontario (10.0 days) and longest in Newfoundland and Labrador (16.1 days; P < 0.001). Risk-adjusted ICU LOS was shortest in Québec (4.4 days) and longest in Alberta (6.1 days; P < 0.001). Patient case-mix explained 32% and 8% of interhospital variations in hospital and ICU LOS, respectively, whereas treatment-related factors explained 63% and 22%. CONCLUSIONS: We observed significant variation in risk-adjusted hospital and ICU LOS across trauma systems in Canada. Provider ranks on hospital LOS were not related to those observed for ICU LOS. Treatment-related factors explained more interhospital variation in LOS than patient case-mix. Results suggest that interventions targeting reductions in low-value procedures, prevention of adverse events, and better discharge planning may be most effective for optimizing LOS for injury admissions.

Administrator Perspectives on ICU-to-Ward Transfers and Content Contained in Existing Transfer Tools: a Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: The transfer of critically ill patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to hospital ward is challenging. Shortcomings in the delivery of care for patients transferred from the ICU have been associated with higher healthcare costs and poor satisfaction with care. Little is known about how hospital ward providers, who accept care of these patients, perceive current transfer practices nor which aspects of transfer they perceive as needing improvement. OBJECTIVE: To compare ICU and ward administrator perspectives regarding ICU-to-ward transfer practices and evaluate the content of transfer tools. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey design. PARTICIPANTS: We administered a survey to 128 medical and/or surgical ICU and 256 ward administrators to obtain institutional perspectives on ICU transfer practices. We performed qualitative content analysis on ICU transfer tools received from respondents. KEY RESULTS: In total, 108 (77%) ICU and 160 (63%) ward administrators responded to the survey. The ICU attending physician was reported to be "primarily responsible" for the safety (93% vs. 91%; p = 0.515) of patient transfers. ICU administrators more commonly perceived discharge summaries to be routinely included in patient transfers than ward administrators (81% vs. 60%; p = 0.006). Both groups identified information provided to patients/families, patient/family participation during transfer, and ICU-ward collaboration as opportunities for improvement. A minority of hospitals used ICU-to-ward transfer tools (11%) of which most (n = 21 unique) were designed to communicate patient information between providers (71%) and comprised six categories of information: demographics, patient clinical course, corrective aids, mobility at discharge, review of systems, and documentation of transfer procedures. CONCLUSION: ICU and ward administrators have similar perspectives of transfer practices and identified patient/family engagement and communication as priorities for improvement. Key information categories exist.

Impact of Trauma System Structure on Injury Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of trauma systems in decreasing injury mortality and morbidity has been well demonstrated. However, little is known about which components contribute to their effectiveness. We aimed to systematically review the evidence of the impact of trauma system components on clinically important injury outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge, gray literature and trauma association Web sites to identify studies evaluating the association between at least one trauma system component and injury outcome. We calculated pooled effect estimates using inverse-variance random-effects models. We evaluated quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. RESULTS: We screened 15,974 records, retaining 41 studies for qualitative synthesis and 19 for meta-analysis. Two recommended trauma system components were associated with reduced odds of mortality: inclusive design (odds ratio [OR] = 0.72 [0.65-0.80]) and helicopter transport (OR = 0.70 [0.55-0.88]). Pre-Hospital Advanced Trauma Life Support was associated with a significant reduction in hospital days (mean difference [MD] = 5.7 [4.4-7.0]) but a nonsignificant reduction in mortality (OR = 0.78 [0.44-1.39]). Population density of surgeons was associated with a nonsignificant decrease in mortality (MD = 0.58 [-0.22 to 1.39]). Trauma system maturity was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (OR = 0.76 [0.68-0.85]). Quality of evidence was low or very low for mortality and healthcare utilization. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of an inclusive design and trauma system maturity and very-low-quality evidence for helicopter transport in reducing injury mortality. Further research should evaluate other recommended components of trauma systems and non-fatal outcomes and explore the impact of system component interactions.

Canadian benchmarks for acute injury care.

BACKGROUND: Acute care injury outcomes vary substantially across Canadian provinces and trauma centres. Our aim was to develop Canadian benchmarks to monitor mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS) for injury admissions. METHODS: Benchmarks were derived using data from the Canadian National Trauma Registry on patients with major trauma admitted to any level I or II trauma centre in Canada and from the following patient subgroups: isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI), isolated thoracoabdominal injury, multisystem blunt injury, age 65 years or older. We assessed predictive validity using measures of discrimination and calibration, and performed sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of replacing analytically complex methods (multiple imputation, shrinkage estimates and flexible modelling) with simple models that can be implemented locally. RESULTS: The mortality risk adjustment model had excellent discrimination and calibration (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.886, Hosmer-Lemeshow 36). The LOS risk-adjustment model predicted 29% of the variation in LOS. Overall, observed:expected ratios of mortality and mean LOS generated by an analytically simple model correlated strongly with those generated by analytically complex models (r > 0.95, κ on outliers > 0.90). CONCLUSION: We propose Canadian benchmarks that can be used to monitor quality of care in Canadian trauma centres using Excel (see the appendices, available at canjsurg.ca). The program can be implemented using local trauma registries, providing that at least 100 patients are available for analysis.

CONTEXTE: L'issue des traitements dispensés dans les services de traumatologie d'urgence varie substantiellement d'une province canadienne et d'un centre de traumatologie à l'autre. Notre but était d'établir des valeurs de référence pour suivre la mortalité et la durée des séjours hospitaliers en traumatologie au Canada. MÉTHODES: Les paramètres ont été sélectionnés à partir des données du Registre national des traumatismes concernant les grands polytraumatisés admis dans tout centre de traumatologie de niveau I ou II au Canada et selon les catégories de patients suivantes : traumatisme crânien isolé (TCI), traumatisme thoraco-abdominal isolé, traumatisme plurisystémique fermé, âge de 65 ans ou plus. Nous avons évalué la validité prédictive à l'aide de critères discriminants et de paramètres d'étalonnage et nous avons procédé à des analyses de sensibilité pour évaluer l'impact du remplacement de méthodes analytiques complexes (imputation multiple, estimations par contraction des coefficients et modélisation flexible) par des modèles simples applicables à l'échelle locale. RÉSULTATS: Le modèle d'ajustement du risque de mortalité s'est révélé doté d'un pouvoir discriminant et d'un étalonnage excellents (aire sous la courbe de la fonction d'efficacité du récepteur [ROC] 0,886, test de Hosmer-Lemeshow 36). Le modèle d'ajustement du risque pour la durée du séjour hospitalier a permis de prédire 29 % de sa variation. De plus, les rapports observés:attendus pour la mortalité et la durée moyenne des séjours hospitaliers générés par un modèle analytique simple ont été en étroite corrélation avec les rapports générés par les modèles analytiques complexes (r > 0,95, κ pour valeurs aberrantes > 0,90). CONCLUSION: Nous proposons des valeurs de référence canadiennes qui peuvent être utilisées pour faire le suivi de la qualité des soins dans les centres de traumatologie canadiens à l'aide d'un simple programme Excel (voir les annexes, accessible à l'adresse canjsurg.ca). Le programme peut être appliqué à l'aide des données des registres de traumatologie locaux à la condition qu'au moins 100 patients y soient accessibles pour analyse.

Accuracy of peripheral thermometers for estimating temperature: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Body temperature is commonly used to screen patients for infectious diseases, establish diagnoses, monitor therapy, and guide management decisions. PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of peripheral thermometers for estimating core body temperature in adults and children. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL Plus from inception to July 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies comparing the accuracy of peripheral (tympanic membrane, temporal artery, axillary, or oral) thermometers with central (pulmonary artery catheter, urinary bladder, esophageal, or rectal) thermometers. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes and assessed the quality of individual studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: 75 studies (8682 patients) were included. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of patient selection bias (74%) or index test bias (67%). Compared with central thermometers, peripheral thermometers had pooled 95% limits of agreement (random-effects meta-analysis) outside the predefined clinically acceptable range (± 0.5 °C), especially among patients with fever (-1.44 °C to 1.46 °C for adults; -1.49 °C to 0.43 °C for children) and hypothermia (-2.07 °C to 1.90 °C for adults; no data for children). For detection of fever (bivariate random-effects meta-analysis), sensitivity was low (64% [95% CI, 55% to 72%]; I2 = 95.7%; P < 0.001) but specificity was high (96% [CI, 93% to 97%]; I2 = 96.3%; P < 0.001). Only 1 study reported sensitivity and specificity for the detection of hypothermia. LIMITATIONS: High-quality data for some temperature measurement techniques are limited. Pooled data are associated with interstudy heterogeneity that is not fully explained by stratified and metaregression analyses. CONCLUSION: Peripheral thermometers do not have clinically acceptable accuracy and should not be used when accurate measurement of body temperature will influence clinical decisions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Validation of Complications Selected by Consensus to Evaluate the Acute Phase of Adult Trauma Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the predictive validity of complications derived using expert consensus methodology to monitor the quality of trauma care. Secondary objectives were to assess the predictive validity of complications not selected by consensus and identify determinants of complications. BACKGROUND: A list of complications to monitor the quality of trauma care has recently been derived using Delphi consensus methodology. However, the predictive validity of consensus complications has not yet been demonstrated. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cohort study of adults admitted to the 57 adult trauma centers of a Canadian integrated trauma system (2007-2012; n = 84,216). Multiple generalized linear models were used to assess the influence of complications on mortality and acute care length of stay (LOS) and to identify determinants of consensus complications. RESULTS: The presence of at least 1 consensus complication was associated with a 2.7-fold [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.45-2.90] and 2.2-fold (95% CI: 2.11-2.19) increase in the odds of mortality and mean LOS, respectively. Nonselected complications were associated with no increase in mortality (odds ratio = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.80-1.01) and a 60% increase in LOS (geometric mean ratio = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.57-1.62). Patient-related factors and factors related to treatment explained 66% and 34% of the variation in complication rates, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the face and content validity ensured by consensus methodology, this study suggests that consensus complications have good predictive validity. Monitoring these complications as part of quality improvement activities would provide an opportunity to improve outcome and resource use for injury admissions.

Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Low-value clinical practices are common in healthcare, yet the optimal approach to de-adopting these practices is unknown. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on de-adoption, document current terminology and frameworks, map the literature to a proposed framework, identify gaps in our understanding of de-adoption, and identify opportunities for additional research. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, and CINAHL Plus were searched from 1 January 1990 to 5 March 2014. Additional citations were identified from bibliographies of included citations, relevant websites, the PubMed 'related articles' function, and contacting experts in implementation science. English-language citations that referred to de-adoption of clinical practices in adults with medical, surgical, or psychiatric illnesses were included. Citation selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. RESULTS: From 26,608 citations, 109 were included in the final review. Most citations (65%) were original research with the majority (59%) published since 2010. There were 43 unique terms referring to the process of de-adoption-the most frequently cited was "disinvest" (39% of citations). The focus of most citations was evaluating the outcomes of de-adoption (50%), followed by identifying low-value practices (47%), and/or facilitating de-adoption (40%). The prevalence of low-value practices ranged from 16% to 46%, with two studies each identifying more than 100 low-value practices. Most articles cited randomized clinical trials (41%) that demonstrate harm (73%) and/or lack of efficacy (63%) as the reason to de-adopt an existing clinical practice. Eleven citations described 13 frameworks to guide the de-adoption process, from which we developed a model for facilitating de-adoption. Active change interventions were associated with the greatest likelihood of de-adoption. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified a large body of literature that describes current approaches and challenges to de-adoption of low-value clinical practices. Additional research is needed to determine an ideal strategy for identifying low-value practices, and facilitating and sustaining de-adoption. In the meantime, this study proposes a model that providers and decision-makers can use to guide efforts to de-adopt ineffective and harmful practices.

Hospital length of stay after admission for traumatic injury in Canada: a multicenter cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe acute care length of stay (LOS) over all consecutive hospitalizations for the injury and according to level of care [intensive care unit (ICU), intermediate care, general ward], compare observed and expected LOS, and identify predictors of LOS. BACKGROUND: Prolonged LOS has important consequences in terms of costs and outcome, yet detailed information on LOS after trauma is lacking. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study was based on adults discharged alive from a Canadian trauma system (1999-2010; n = 126,513). Registry data were used to calculate index LOS (LOS in trauma center with highest designation level) and were linked to hospital discharge data to calculate total LOS (all consecutive hospitalizations for the injury). Expected LOS was obtained by matching general provincial discharge statistics to study data by year, age, and sex. Potential predictors of LOS were evaluated using linear regression. RESULTS: Mean index and total LOS were 8.6 and 9.4 days, respectively. ICU, intermediate care unit, and general ward care constituted 8.9%, 2.5%, and 88.6% of total hospital days. Observed mean index and ICU LOS in our trauma patients were 2.9 and 1.3 days longer than expected LOS (P < 0.0001). The strongest determinants of index LOS were discharge destination, age, transfer status, and injury severity. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that acute care LOS after injury is underestimated when only information on the index hospitalization is used and that ICU or intermediate care constitute an important part of LOS. This information should be used to inform the development of an informative and actionable quality indicator.

Rates, patterns, and determinants of unplanned readmission after traumatic injury: a multicenter cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (i) describe unplanned readmission rates after injury according to time, reason, and place; (ii) compare observed rates with general population rates, and (iii) identify determinants of 30-day readmission. BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions represent an important burden in terms of mortality, morbidity, and resource use but information on unplanned rehospitalization after injury admissions is scarce. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study was based on adults discharged alive from a Canadian provincial trauma system (1998-2010; n = 115,329). Trauma registry data were linked to hospital discharge data to obtain information on readmission up to 12 months postdischarge. Provincial admission rates were matched to study data by age and gender to obtain expected rates. Determinants of readmission were identified using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Cumulative readmission rates at 30 days, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months were 5.9%, 10.9%, 15.5%, and 21.1%, respectively. Observed rates persisted above expected rates up to 11 months postdischarge. Thirty percent of 30-day readmissions were due to potential complications of injury compared with 3% for general provincial admissions. Only 23% of readmissions were to the same hospital. The strongest independent predictors of readmission were the number of prior admissions, discharge destination, the number of comorbidities, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned readmissions after discharge from acute care for traumatic injury are frequent, persist beyond 30 days, and are often related to potential complications of injury. Several patient-, injury-, and hospital-related factors are associated with the risk of readmission. Injury readmission rates should be monitored as part of trauma quality assurance efforts.

Derivation and validation of a quality indicator of acute care length of stay to evaluate trauma care.

OBJECTIVE: To derive and internally validate a quality indicator (QI) for acute care length of stay (LOS) after admission for injury. BACKGROUND: Unnecessary hospital days represent an estimated 20% of total LOS implying an important waste of resources as well as increased patient exposure to hospital-acquired infections and functional decline. METHODS: This study is based on a multicenter, retrospective cohort from a Canadian provincial trauma system (2005-2010; 57 trauma centers; n = 57,524). Data were abstracted from the provincial trauma registry and the hospital discharge database. Candidate risk factors were identified by expert consensus and selected for model derivation using bootstrap resampling. The validity of the QI was evaluated in terms of interhospital discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting. RESULTS: The risk adjustment model explains 37% of the variation in LOS. The QI discriminates well across trauma centers (coefficient of variation = 0.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.011-0.028) and is correlated with the QI on processes of care (r = -0.32), complications (r = 0.66), unplanned readmissions (r = 0.38), and mortality (r = 0.35). Performance in 2005 to 2007 was predictive of performance in 2008 to 2010 (r = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a QI on the basis of risk-adjusted LOS to evaluate trauma care that can be implemented with routinely collected data. The QI is based on a robust risk adjustment model with good internal and temporal validity, and demonstrates good properties in terms of discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting. This QI can be used to target interventions to reduce LOS, which will lead to more efficient resource use and may improve patient outcomes after injury.

Acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway for use in critically ill adults with hypoxaemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): a qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Hypoxaemic respiratory failure (HRF) affects nearly 15% of critically ill adults admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). An evidence-based, stakeholder-informed multidisciplinary care pathway (Venting Wisely) was created to standardise the diagnosis and management of patients with HRF and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Successful adherence to the pathway requires a coordinated team-based approach by the clinician team. The overall aim of this study is to describe the acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway among critical care clinicians. Specifically, this will allow us to (1) better understand the user's experience with the intervention and (2) determine if the intervention was delivered as intended. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This qualitative study will conduct focus groups with nurse practitioners, physicians, registered nurses and registered respiratory therapists from 17 Alberta ICUs. We will use template analysis to describe the acceptability of a multicomponent care pathway according to seven constructs of acceptability: (1) affective attitude;,(2) burden, (3) ethicality, (4) intervention coherence, (5) opportunity costs, (6) perceived effectiveness and (7) self-efficacy. This study will contribute to a better understanding of the acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway. Identification of areas of poor acceptability will be used to refine the pathway and implementation strategies as ways to improve adherence to the pathway and promote its sustainability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a scientific conference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04744298.

Clinical practice guideline recommendations to improve the mental health of adult trauma patients: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Mental disorders are common in adult patients with traumatic injuries. To limit the burden of poor psychological well-being in this population, recognised authorities have issued recommendations through clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, the uptake of evidence-based recommendations to improve the mental health of trauma patients has been low until recently. This may be explained by the complexity of optimising mental health practices and interpretating CGPs scope and quality. Our aim is to systematically review CPG mental health recommendations in the context of trauma care and appraise their quality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will identify CPG through a search strategy applied to Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science databases, as well as guidelines repositories and websites of trauma associations. We will target CPGs on adult and acute trauma populations including at least one recommendation on any prevention, screening, assessment, intervention, patient and family engagement, referral or follow-up procedure related to mental health endorsed by recognised organisations in high-income countries. No language limitations will be applied, and we will limit the search to the last 15 years. Pairs of reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, full texts, and carry out data extraction and quality assessment of CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We will synthesise the evidence on recommendations for CPGs rated as moderate or high quality using a matrix based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation quality of evidence, strength of recommendation, health and social determinants and whether recommendations were made using a population-based approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required, as we will conduct secondary analysis of published data. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, at international and national scientific meetings. Accessible summary will be distributed to interested parties through professional, healthcare quality and persons with lived experience associations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: (ID454728).

Risk factors for intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome among adult intensive care unit patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Although intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality among critically ill adults, it remains unknown if prevention or treatment of these conditions improves patient outcomes. We sought to identify evidence-based risk factors for IAH and ACS in order to guide identification of the source population for future IAH/ACS treatment trials and to stratify patients into risk groups based on prognosis. METHODS: We searched electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database from 1950 until January 21, 2013) and reference lists of included articles for observational studies reporting risk factors for IAH or ACS among adult ICU patients. Identified risk factors were summarized using formal narrative synthesis techniques alongside a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Among 1,224 citations identified, 14 studies enrolling 2,500 patients were included. The 38 identified risk factors for IAH and 24 for ACS could be clustered into three themes and eight subthemes. Large volume crystalloid resuscitation, the respiratory status of the patient, and shock/hypotension were common risk factors for IAH and ACS that transcended across presenting patient populations. Risk factors with pooled evidence supporting an increased risk for IAH among mixed ICU patients included obesity (four studies; odds ratio (OR) 5.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.92 to 13.58), sepsis (two studies; OR 2.38; 95% CI, 1.34 to 4.23), abdominal surgery (four studies; OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.85), ileus (two studies; OR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.98), and large volume fluid resuscitation (two studies; OR 2.17; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.63). Among trauma and surgical patients, large volume crystalloid resuscitation and markers of shock/hypotension and metabolic derangement/organ failure were risk factors for IAH and ACS while increased disease severity scores and elevated creatinine were risk factors for ACS in severe acute pancreatitis patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although several IAH/ACS risk factors transcend across presenting patient diagnoses, some appear specific to the population under study. As our findings were somewhat limited by included study methodology, the risk factors reported in this study should be considered candidate risk factors until confirmed by a large prospective multi-centre observational study.

Family coaching during Spontaneous Awakening Trials and Spontaneous Breathing Trials (FamCAB): pilot study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) require weaning from deep sedation (Spontaneous Awakening Trials, SATs) and mechanical ventilation (Spontaneous Breathing Trials, SBTs) in their journey to recovery. These procedures can be distressing for patients and their families. The presence of family members as 'coaches' during SATs/SBTs could provide patients with reassurance, reduce stress for patients and families and potentially improve procedural success rates. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be executed in two phases:Development of a coaching module: a working group including patient partners (i.e., former ICU patients or family members of former ICU patients), researchers, and ICU clinicians will develop an educational module on family coaching during SATs/SBTs (FamCAB). This module will provide families of critically ill patients basic information about SATs/SBTs as well as coaching guidance.Pilot testing: family members of ICU patients will complete the FamCAB module and provide information on: (1) demographics, (2) anxiety and (3) satisfaction with care in the ICU. Family members will then coach the patient through the next clinically indicated SATs and/or SBTs. Information around duration of time and success rates of SATs and/or SBTs (ability to conduct a complete assessment) alongside feedback will be collected. ICU clinical staff (including physicians and nurses) will be asked for feedback on practicality and perceived benefits or drawbacks of family coaching during these procedures. Feasibility and acceptability of family coaching in SATs/SBTs will be determined. DISCUSSION: The results of this work will inform whether a larger study to explore family coaching during SATs/SBTs is warranted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethical approval from the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board. Results from this pilot study will be made available via peer-reviewed journals and presented at critical care conferences on completion.

Effect of a Continuous Bedside Pressure Mapping System for Reducing Interface Pressures: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous bedside pressure mapping (CBPM) technology can assist in detecting skin areas with excessive interface pressure and inform efficient patient repositioning to prevent the development of pressure injuries (PI). Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of CBPM technology in reducing interface pressure and the incidence of PIs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group randomized clinical trial was performed at a tertiary acute care center. The study started to enroll participants in December 2014 and was completed in May 2018. Participants included adults partially or completely dependent for bed mobility. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2018 to December 2022. Intervention: Nursing staff using visual feedback from CBPM technology for 72 hours. Main Outcomes and Measures: Absolute number of sensing points with pressure readings greater than 40 mm Hg, mean interface pressure across all sensing points under a patient's body, proportion of participants who had pressure readings greater than 40 mm Hg, and pressure-related skin and soft tissue changes. Results: There were 678 patients recruited. After attrition, 260 allocated to the control group (151 [58.1%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.9 [18.5] years) and 247 in the intervention group (147 [59.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 63.6 [18.1] years) were included in analyses. The absolute number of sensing points with pressures greater than 40 mm Hg were 11 033 in the control group vs 9314 in the intervention group (P = .16). The mean (SD) interface pressure was 6.80 (1.63) mm Hg in the control group vs 6.62 (1.51) mm Hg in the intervention group (P = .18). The proportion of participants who had pressure readings greater than 40 mm Hg was 99.6% in both the control and intervention groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of CBPM technology in the reduction of interface pressure and the incidence of PIs in a tertiary acute care center, no statistically significant benefit was seen for any of the primary outcomes. These results suggest that longer duration of monitoring and adequately powered studies where CBPM feedback is integrated into a multifaceted intervention to prevent PI are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02325388.

Overnight staffing in Canadian neonatal and pediatric intensive care units.

Aim: Infants and children who require specialized medical attention are admitted to neonatal and pediatric intensive care units (ICUs) for continuous and closely supervised care. Overnight in-house physician coverage is frequently considered the ideal staffing model. It remains unclear how often this is achieved in both pediatric and neonatal ICUs in Canada. The aim of this study is to describe overnight in-house physician staffing in Canadian pediatric and level-3 neonatal ICUs (NICUs) in the pre-COVID-19 era. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted in 34 NICUs and 19 pediatric ICUs (PICUs). ICU directors or their delegates completed a 29-question survey describing overnight staffing by resident physicians, fellow physicians, nurse practitioners, and attending physicians. A comparative analysis was conducted between ICUs with and without in-house physicians. Results: We obtained responses from all 34 NICUs and 19 PICUs included in this study. A total of 44 ICUs (83%) with in-house overnight physician coverage provided advanced technologies, such as extracorporeal life support, and included all ICUs that catered to patients with cardiac, transplant, or trauma conditions. Residents provided the majority of overnight coverage, followed by the Critical Care Medicine fellows. An attending physician was in-house overnight in eight (15%) out of the 53 ICUs, seven of which were NICUs. Residents participating in rotations in the ICU would often have rotation durations of less than 6 weeks and were often responsible for providing care during shifts lasting 20-24 h. Conclusion: Most PICUs and level-3 NICUs in Canada have a dedicated in-house physician overnight. These physicians are mainly residents or fellows, but a notable variation exists in this arrangement. The potential effects on patient outcomes, resident learning, and physician satisfaction remain unclear and warrant further investigation.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value care in adults hospitalized following trauma: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While simple Audit & Feedback (A&F) has shown modest effectiveness in reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance-linked to accreditation. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) embedded in a Canadian provincial quality assurance program. Level I-III trauma centers (n = 30) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The intervention, developed using extensive background work and UK Medical Research Council guidelines, includes an A&F report, educational meetings, and facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be the use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed at the patient level using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging after a patient transfer, unintended consequences, determinants for successful implementation, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. DISCUSSION: On completion of the cRCT, if the intervention is effective and cost-effective, the multifaceted intervention will be integrated into trauma systems across Canada. Medium and long-term benefits may include a reduction in adverse events for patients and an increase in resource availability. The proposed intervention targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, was developed using a partnership approach, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. There will be no attrition, identification, or recruitment bias as the intervention is mandatory in line with trauma center designation requirements, and all outcomes will be assessed with routinely collected data. However, investigators cannot be blinded to group allocation and there is a possibility of contamination bias that will be minimized by conducting intervention refinement only with participants in the intervention arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24, 2023, # NCT05744154 ).