Thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized medical patients: a multicenter qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have documented that medical patients infrequently receive venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention. OBJECTIVE: To understand the barriers to, and facilitators of, optimal thromboprophylaxis. PATIENTS: Hospitalized medical patients. DESIGN: We conducted in-depth interviews with 15 nurses, 6 pharmacists, 12 physicians with both clinical and managerial experience, and 3 hospital administrators. SETTING: One university-affiliated and 2 community hospitals. INTERVENTION: Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were reviewed and interpreted independently in duplicate. MEASUREMENT: Analysis was conducted using grounded theory. RESULTS: Physicians and pharmacists affirmed that evidence supporting heparin is strong and understood. Clinicians, particularly nurses, reported that mobilization was important, but were uncertain about how much mobilization was enough. Participants believed that depending on individual physicians for VTE prevention is insufficient. The central finding was that multidisciplinary care was also perceived as a barrier to effective VTE prevention because it can lead to unclear accountability by role confusion. Participants believed that a comprehensive, systems approach was necessary. Suggestions included screening and risk-stratifying all patients, preprinted orders at hospital admission that are regularly reevaluated, and audit and feedback programs. Patient or family-mediated reminders, and administrative interventions, such as hiring more physiotherapists and profiling thromboprophylaxis in hospital accreditation, were also endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: Universal consideration of thromboprophylaxis finds common ground in multidisciplinary care. However, results of this qualitative study challenge the conviction that either individual physician efforts or multidisciplinary care are sufficient for optimal prevention. To ensure exemplary medical thromboprophylaxis, clinicians regarded coordinated, systemwide processes, aimed at patients, providers, and administrators as essential.

Lowering of glucose in critical care: a randomized pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Similar to cardiac surgery patients, medical-surgical critically ill patients may benefit from intensive insulin therapy. The objectives of this pilot trial were to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized trial of intensive insulin therapy with respect to (a) achieving target glucose values in the 2 ranges of 5 to 7 and 8 to 10 mmol/L and (b) uncovering problems with the protocol in anticipation of a larger trial. SETTING: The trial was conducted in a 15-bed medical-surgical university-affiliated intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We included patients older than 18 years, expected to be in ICU for more than 72 hours, with a glucose value of more than 10 mmol/L within 48 hours of ICU admission. Exclusion criteria were diabetic ketoacidosis, severe hepatic failure or hepatic resection, pancreatitis, glucose of less than 2.2 mmol/L on admission to hospital, insulin infusion on admission to ICU, planned withdrawal of life support, and inability to obtain informed consent. Patients underwent concealed random allocation to a target glucose range of 5 to 7 or 8 to 10 mmol/L using pretested algorithms of insulin infusions. Dedicated glucometer measurement of arterial glucose values was calibrated daily to values measured in the laboratory. RESULTS: We enrolled 20 patients with a mean (SD) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of 32 (10.2); 14 were insulin-dependent pre-ICU, and all were medical admissions. Mean glucose values were different in the 2 groups (7.1 +/- 2.6 vs 9.4 +/- 2.1 mmol/L, P < .001). Although the intensive insulin therapy group had more glucose measurements performed than the control group, a similar proportion of values were within the target range (682 [42.4%] of 1607 values in the 5- to 7-mmol/L range; 250 [38.7%] of 660 values in the 8- to 10-mmol/L range, P = .35). Glucose values of less than 2.5 mmol/L developed 7 times in 5 patients, 4 of whom were in the intensive insulin therapy group; however, no adverse consequences were documented. As expected, there were no differences in clinically important outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial of ICU patients with high illness severity, glucose values were in the 2 target ranges only 40% of the time, using well-accepted initiation and maintenance insulin infusion algorithms. A large randomized trial of glycemic control is feasible in this population to examine clinically important outcomes, but will require refined insulin algorithms and more comprehensive behavior change strategies to achieve target values.

Glycemic control in the ICU: a multicenter survey.

BACKGROUND: Intensive insulin therapy has recently been shown to decrease morbidity and mortality in the critically ill population in a large randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine the beliefs and attitudes of ICU clinicians about glycemic control. DESIGN: Self-administered survey. PARTICIPANTS: ICU nurses and physicians in five university-affiliated multidisciplinary ICUs. RESULTS: A total of 317 questionnaires were returned from 233 ICU nurses and 84 physicians. The reported clinically important threshold for hypoglycemia was 4 mmol/l (median, IQR 3-4 mmol/l). In non-diabetic patients, the clinically important threshold for hyperglycemia was 10 mmol/l (IQR 9-12 mmol/l); however, nurses had a significantly higher threshold than physicians (difference of 0.52 mmol/l (95% CI 0.09-0.94 mmol/l, P=0.018). In diabetic patients, the clinically important threshold for hyperglycemia was also 10 mmol/l (IQR 10-12 mmol/l), and again nurses had a significantly higher threshold than physicians (0.81 mmol/l, 95% CI 0.29-1.32 mmol/l, P=0.0023). Avoidance of hyperglycemia was judged most important for diabetic patients (87.7%, 95% CI 84.1-91.3%), patients with acute brain injury (84.5%, 95% CI 80.5-88.5%), patients with a recent seizure (74.4%, 95% CI 69.6-79.3%), patients with advanced liver disease (64.0%, 95% CI 58.7-69.3%), and for patients with acute myocardial infarction (64.0%, 95% CI 58.7-69.3%). Physicians expressed more concern than nurses about avoiding hyperglycemia in patients with acute myocardial infarction ( P=0.0004). ICU clinicians raised concerns about the accuracy of glucometer measurements in critically ill patients (46.1%, 95% CI 40.5-51.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Attention to these beliefs and attitudes could enhance the success of future clinical, educational and research efforts to modify clinician behavior and achieve better glycemic control in the ICU setting.

Withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in anticipation of death in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: In critically ill patients who are receiving mechanical ventilation, the factors associated with physicians' decisions to withdraw ventilation in anticipation of death are unclear. The objective of this study was to examine the clinical determinants that were associated with the withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We studied adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation in 15 intensive care units, recording base-line physiological characteristics, daily Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scores, the patient's decision-making ability, the type of life support administered, the use of do-not-resuscitate orders, the physician's prediction of the patient's status, and the physician's perceptions of the patient's preferences about the use of life support. We examined the relation between these factors and withdrawal of mechanical ventilation, using Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 851 patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation, 539 (63.3 percent) were successfully weaned, 146 (17.2 percent) died while receiving mechanical ventilation, and 166 (19.5 percent) had mechanical ventilation withdrawn. The need for inotropes or vasopressors was associated with withdrawal of the ventilator (hazard ratio, 1.78; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.20 to 2.66; P=0.004), as were the physician's prediction that the patient's likelihood of survival in the intensive care unit was less than 10 percent (hazard ratio, 3.49; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.39 to 8.79; P=0.002), the physician's prediction that future cognitive function would be severely impaired (hazard ratio, 2.51; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.28 to 4.94; P=0.04), and the physician's perception that the patient did not want life support used (hazard ratio, 4.19; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.57 to 6.81; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rather than age or the severity of the illness and organ dysfunction, the strongest determinants of the withdrawal of ventilation in critically ill patients were the physician's perception that the patient preferred not to use life support, the physician's predictions of a low likelihood of survival in the intensive care unit and a high likelihood of poor cognitive function, and the use of inotropes or vasopressors.

Toward understanding evidence uptake: semirecumbency for pneumonia prevention.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized trials show that the semirecumbent position compared with the supine position is associated with less gastroesophageal aspiration and pneumonia in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. However, semirecumbency is inconsistently used in practice. The objective of this study was to understand the perspectives of intensive care unit clinicians regarding the determinants and consequences of semirecumbency. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews and focus groups. SETTING: Three university-affiliated intensive care units. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 93 intensive care unit clinicians, including bedside nurses, respiratory therapists, physiotherapists, nutritionists, residents, fellows, and intensivists. METHODS: We elicited perceptions about benefits and harms of semirecumbency, factors promoting and deterring use, and health systems changes to encourage semirecumbency. Interview and focus group notes were analyzed inductively to identify emerging themes. Validation methods involved triangulation by multidisciplinary analysis of several data sources collected through multiple methods and member checking. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Intensivists and nutritionists were familiar with semirecumbency as a potential pneumonia prevention strategy, whereas other clinicians were not. When made aware of the evidence, all participants endorsed semirecumbency. Nurses perceived that the main determinant of semirecumbency was physicians' orders, whereas intensivists perceived that the main determinant was nursing preference. Participants identified barriers to semirecumbency related to useful alternative positions (e.g., lateral position), contraindications (e.g., hemodynamic instability), risk of harm (e.g., decubitus ulcers), safety (e.g., sliding out of the bed), and resources (e.g., insufficient beds facilitating semirecumbency). Education, guidelines, reminders, audit and feedback, charting, and quality improvement initiatives were advocated to promote semirecumbency. CONCLUSIONS: Under-utilization of semirecumbency for pneumonia prevention is influenced by insufficient awareness of its benefit, real and perceived deterrents, poor agreement about implementation responsibility, and lack of enabling and reinforcing strategies. Cognitive, behavioral, and administrative approaches to enhancing evidence uptake may be needed in the complex, dynamic intensive care unit setting.

Education, ethics, and end-of-life decisions in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of education and clinical experience on residents' attitudes toward withdrawal of life support. DESIGN: Self-administered survey. SETTING: Four Canadian teaching hospitals. SUBJECTS: Residents rotating through four intensive care units. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The survey examined ethics education and experience regarding end-of-life care, importance of factors influencing withdrawal of life support, confidence in decisions, and recommendations for enhancing end-of-life education. The response rate was 83.9% (52 of 62). A minority of residents reported an appropriate amount of formal teaching on ethical principles (17.3%), patient-centered education (28.8%), and informal discussion (28.8%) before their intensive care unit rotation. During their rotation, most residents cared for patients in whom withdrawal of life support was considered. Although they usually attended family meetings, residents were never (34.6%) or rarely (42.3%) the primary discussant. Before the intensive care unit rotation, confidence in withdrawal decisions was related to male sex (p =.001) and previous patient-centered ethics education (p =.02). At the end of the intensive care unit rotation, only resident involvement in family meetings (p =.02) and being the primary discussant at such meetings (p =.01) were associated with confidence. After we adjusted for pre-rotation confidence in withdrawal of life support decision-making, the only predictor of post-rotation confidence was family meeting involvement (p <.001). Residents recommended more patient-centered discussion, observation of attending physicians discussing end-of-life issues, and opportunity to lead family meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Experiential, case-based, patient-centered curricula are associated with resident confidence in withdrawal of life support decisions in the intensive care unit.