Evaluation of a health and social care programme to improve outcomes following critical illness: a multicentre study.

RATIONALE: At present, clinicians aiming to support patients through the challenges after critical care have limited evidence to base interventions. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate a multicentre integrated health and social care intervention for critical care survivors. A process evaluation assessed factors influencing the programme implementation. METHODS: This study evaluated the impact of the Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment (InS:PIRE) programme. We compared patients who attended this programme with a usual care cohort from the same time period across nine hospital sites in Scotland. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured via the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level instrument, at 12 months post hospital discharge. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy, depression, anxiety and pain. RESULTS: 137 patients who received the InS:PIRE intervention completed outcome measures at 12 months. In the usual care cohort, 115 patients completed the measures. The two cohorts had similar baseline demographics. After adjustment, there was a significant absolute increase in HRQoL in the intervention cohort in relation to the usual care cohort (0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.20, p=0.01). Patients in the InS:PIRE cohort also reported self-efficacy scores that were 7.7% higher (2.32 points higher, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.31, p=0.02), fewer symptoms of depression (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.76, p=0.01) and similar symptoms of anxiety (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.13, p=0.11). There was no significant difference in overall pain experience. Key facilitators for implementation were: integration with inpatient care, organisational engagement, flexibility to service inclusion; key barriers were: funding, staff availability and venue availability. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre evaluation of a health and social care programme designed for survivors of critical illness appears to show benefit at 12 months following hospital discharge.

Organ Donation after Circulatory Determination of Death in India: A Joint Position Paper.

Organ donation following circulatory determination of death (DCDD) has contributed significantly to the donor pool in several countries. In India, majority of deceased donations happen following brain death (BD). While existing legislation allows for DCDD, there have been only few reports of kidney transplantation following DCDD from India. This document, prepared by a multidisciplinary group of experts, reviews international best practices in DCDD and outlines the path for DCDD in India. Ethical, medical, legal, economic, procedural, and logistic challenges unique to India have been addressed. The practice of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WLST) in India, laid down by the Supreme Court of India, is time-consuming, possible only in patients in a permanent vegetative state, and too cumbersome for day-to-day practice. In patients where continued medical care is futile, the procedure for WLST is described. In controlled DCDD (category-III), decision for WLST is independent of and delinked from the subsequent possibility of organ donation. Families that are inclined toward organ donation are explained the procedure including the timing and location of WLST, consent for antemortem measures, no-touch period, and the possibility of stand-down and return to the intensive care unit (ICU) without donation. In donation following neurologic determination of death (DNDD), if cardiac arrest occurs during the process of BD declaration, the protocol for DCDD category-IV has been described in detail. In DCDD category-V, organ donation may be possible following unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation of cardiac arrest in the ICU. An outline of organ-specific requisites for kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation following DCDD and techniques, such as normothermic regional perfusion (nRP) and ex vivo machine perfusion, has been provided. The outcomes of transplantation following DCDD are comparable to those following DBDD or living donor transplantation. Documents and checklists necessary for successful execution of DCDD in India are described. How to cite this article: Seth AK, Mohanka R, Navin S, Gokhale AGK, Sharma A, Kumar A, et al. Organ Donation after Circulatory Determination of Death in India: A Joint Position Paper. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(4):421-438.

What are the precise reasons for the disparity in referrals to fitness to practise between international and UK medical graduates?

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To discover the precise reasons for referring a doctor to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, and whether there are any disparities between referrals of international medical graduates and UK graduates. Further to consider whether understanding the precise reasons would provide insight into the nature of referrals. STUDY DESIGN: We collected and analysed the data from the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service website over a period of 12 months. RESULTS: There were 228 cases of which 142 (62%) were international medical graduates and 86 (38%) were UK graduates. More international medical graduates were referred for professional misconduct, poor performance and lack of adequate English language. The common reasons for professional misconduct were providing sub-optimal care, sexual misconduct and dishonest behaviour. More UK graduates were referred following convictions due to offences related to alcohol intake and financial dishonesty. There is paucity of good quality information to identify the exact reasons for the disparity. CONCLUSION: More international medical graduates were referred to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service than UK graduates. There was disparity in the nature of the referrals and we hope our findings will inform employers and the regulatory bodies to understand that comprehensive induction, inclusion, mentoring and adjustments are needed to support international medical graduates to mitigate the risks of failure and help them to meet the required professional standards.

The Lazarus phenomenon.

Even though Lazarus phenomenon is rare, it is probably under reported. There is no doubt that Lazarus phenomenon is a reality but so far the scientific explanations have been inadequate. So far the only plausible explanation at least in some cases is auto-PEEP and impaired venous return. In patients with PEA or asystole, dynamic hyperinflation should considered as a cause and a short period of apnoea (30-60 seconds) should be tried before stopping resuscitation. Since ROSC occurred within 10 minutes in most cases, patients should be passively monitored for at least 10 minutes after the cessation of CPR before confirming death.