Who to escalate during a pandemic? A retrospective observational study about decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Optimal decision-making regarding who to admit to critical care in pandemic situations remains unclear. We compared age, Clinical Frailty Score (CFS), 4C Mortality Score and hospital mortality in two separate COVID-19 surges based on the escalation decision made by the treating physician. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all referrals to critical care during the first COVID-19 surge (cohort 1, March/April 2020) and a late surge (cohort 2, October/November 2021) was undertaken. Patients with confirmed or high clinical suspicion of COVID-19 infection were included. A senior critical care physician assessed all patients regarding their suitability for potential intensive care unit admission. Demographics, CFS, 4C Mortality Score and hospital mortality were compared depending on the escalation decision made by the attending physician. RESULTS: 203 patients were included in the study, 139 in cohort 1 and 64 in cohort 2. There were no significant differences in age, CFS and 4C scores between the two cohorts. Patients deemed suitable for escalation by clinicians were significantly younger with significantly lower CFS and 4C scores compared with patients who were not deemed to benefit from escalation. This pattern was observed in both cohorts. Mortality in patients not deemed suitable for escalation was 61.8% in cohort 1 and 47.4% in cohort 2 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Decisions who to escalate to critical care in settings with limited resources pose moral distress on clinicians. 4C score, age and CFS did not change significantly between the two surges but differed significantly between patients deemed suitable for escalation and those deemed unsuitable by clinicians. Risk prediction tools may be useful in a pandemic to supplement clinical decision-making, even though escalation thresholds require adjustments to reflect changes in risk profile and outcomes between different pandemic surges.

Beyond audit: Embracing QI methodology to drive improvements in lung-protective ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation supports patients with respiratory failure during critical illness. Evidence suggests that excessive tidal volumes (regarded as >8 mL/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) cause lung damage through increased lung stretch and alveolar inflammation. Lung-protective ventilation strategies have been shown to decrease morbidity and mortality, and that all patients should receive tidal volumes between 6 and 8 mls/kg PBW. Despite this, studies demonstrate that fewer than half of patients in critical care successfully receive lung-protective ventilation. AIM: The primary aim was to reduce tidal volumes delivered to all patients receiving mandatory ventilation, with a target of >85% of tidal volumes delivered to be compliant with lung-protective ventilation strategies by the end of November 2019. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of nurses and doctors, based in a UK tertiary hospital, utilized the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's (IHI) quality improvement methodology to improve compliance with lung-protective ventilation. RESULTS: Baseline data demonstrated that only 60.1% of tidal volumes recorded were compliant with lung-protective ventilation. Quality improvement (QI) methodology was utilized to systematically diagnose the aetiology of poor compliance and to produce and implement solutions. Real-time data collection and reporting were utilized to monitor and report improvement. Following 8 months of continuous data collection and repeated PDSA cycles, sustainable compliance with lung-protective ventilation for >85% of tidal volumes was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: The use of QI methodology to implement low tidal volume ventilation has shown a significant improvement in the delivery of lung-protective ventilation. Using QI methodology is central to this sustained improvement and offers a useful tool to systematically approach complex clinical problems. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Lung protective ventilation is critically important in the management of ventilated patients, although compliance in intensive care is variable. Here, we describe how quality improvement methodology can lead to consistent and sustainable improvement in the delivery of lung protective ventilation.