Dexmedetomidine or Propofol for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines currently recommend targeting light sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Differences exist between these sedatives in arousability, immunity, and inflammation. Whether they affect outcomes differentially in mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis undergoing light sedation is unknown. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis to receive dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 1.5 µg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or propofol (5 to 50 µg per kilogram per minute), with doses adjusted by bedside nurses to achieve target sedation goals set by clinicians according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS, on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]). The primary end point was days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, death at 90 days, and age-adjusted total score on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status questionnaire (TICS-T; scores range from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50±10 and lower scores indicating worse cognition) at 6 months. RESULTS: Of 432 patients who underwent randomization, 422 were assigned to receive a trial drug and were included in the analyses - 214 patients received dexmedetomidine at a median dose of 0.27 µg per kilogram per hour, and 208 received propofol at a median dose of 10.21 µg per kilogram per minute. The median duration of receipt of the trial drugs was 3.0 days (interquartile range, 2.0 to 6.0), and the median RASS score was -2.0 (interquartile range, -3.0 to -1.0). We found no difference between dexmedetomidine and propofol in the number of days alive without delirium or coma (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.26), ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.51), death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52), or TICS-T score at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33). Safety end points were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis who were being treated with recommended light-sedation approaches, outcomes in patients who received dexmedetomidine did not differ from outcomes in those who received propofol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01739933.).

Haloperidol and Ziprasidone for Treatment of Delirium in Critical Illness.

BACKGROUND: There are conflicting data on the effects of antipsychotic medications on delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium to receive intravenous boluses of haloperidol (maximum dose, 20 mg daily), ziprasidone (maximum dose, 40 mg daily), or placebo. The volume and dose of a trial drug or placebo was halved or doubled at 12-hour intervals on the basis of the presence or absence of delirium, as detected with the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, and of side effects of the intervention. The primary end point was the number of days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points included 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, and time to ICU and hospital discharge. Safety end points included extrapyramidal symptoms and excessive sedation. RESULTS: Written informed consent was obtained from 1183 patients or their authorized representatives. Delirium developed in 566 patients (48%), of whom 89% had hypoactive delirium and 11% had hyperactive delirium. Of the 566 patients, 184 were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 192 to receive haloperidol, and 190 to receive ziprasidone. The median duration of exposure to a trial drug or placebo was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7). The median number of days alive without delirium or coma was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.9) in the placebo group, 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.6) in the haloperidol group, and 8.7 (95% CI, 5.9 to 10.0) in the ziprasidone group (P=0.26 for overall effect across trial groups). The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point (odds ratios, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.48], respectively). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to the secondary end points or the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, in patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium in the ICU did not significantly alter the duration of delirium. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the VA Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center; MIND-USA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01211522 .).

ICU Survivorship-The Relationship of Delirium, Sedation, Dementia, and Acquired Weakness.

The advent of modern critical care medicine has revolutionized care of the critically ill patient in the last 50 years. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (was formed in recognition of the challenges and need for specialized treatment for these fragile patients. As the specialty has grown, it has achieved impressive scientific advances that have reduced mortality and saved lives. With those advances, however, came growing recognition that the burden of critical illness did not end at the doorstep of the hospital. Delirium, once thought to be a mere by-product of critical illness, was found to be an independent predictor of mortality, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and long-lasting cognitive impairment. Similarly, deep sedation and immobility, so often used to keep patients "comfortable" and to facilitate mechanical ventilation and recovery, worsen mortality and lead to the development of ICU-acquired weakness. The realization that these outcomes are inextricably linked to one another and how we manage our patients has helped us recognize the need for culture change. We, as a specialty, now understand that although celebrating the successes of survival, we now also have a duty to focus on those who survive their diseases. Led by initiatives such as the ICU Liberation Campaign of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the natural progression of the field is now focused on getting patients back to their homes and lives unencumbered by disability and impairment. Much work remains to be done, but the futures of our most critically ill patients will continue to benefit if we leverage and build on the history of our first 50 years.

Best Practices for Conducting Interprofessional Team Rounds to Facilitate Performance of the ICU Liberation (ABCDEF) Bundle.

OBJECTIVES: Daily ICU interprofessional team rounds, which incorporate the ICU Liberation ("A" for Assessment, Prevention, and Manage Pain; "B" for Both Spontaneous Awakening Trials and Spontaneous Breathing Trials; "C" for Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; "D" for Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; "E" for Early Mobility and Exercise; "F" for Family Engagement and Empowerment [ABCDEF]) Bundle, support both the care coordination and regular provider communication necessary for Bundle execution. This article describes evidence-based practices for conducting effective interprofessional team rounds in the ICU to improve Bundle performance. DESIGN: Best practice synthesis. METHODS: The authors, each extensively involved in the Society of Critical Care Medicine's ICU Liberation Campaign, reviewed the pertinent literature to identify how ICU interprofessional team rounds can be optimized to increase ICU Liberation adherence. RESULTS: Daily ICU interprofessional team rounds that foster ICU Liberation Bundle use support both care coordination and regular provider communication within and between teams. Evidence-based best practices for conducting effective interprofessional team rounds in the ICU include the optimal structure for ICU interprofessional team rounds; the importance of conducting rounds at patients' bedside; essential participants in rounds; the inclusion of ICU patients and their families in rounds-based discussions; and incorporation of the Bundle into the Electronic Health Record. Interprofessional team rounds in the ICU ideally employ communication strategies to foster inclusive and supportive behaviors consistent with interprofessional collaboration in the ICU. Patient care discussions during interprofessional team rounds benefit from being patient-centered and goal-oriented. Documentation of ICU Liberation Bundle elements in the Electronic Health Record may help facilitate team communication and decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting high-quality interprofessional team rounds in the ICU is a key strategy to support ICU Liberation Bundle use.

COVID-19: ICU delirium management during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2-causing Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19), emerged as a public health threat in December 2019 and was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Delirium, a dangerous untoward prognostic development, serves as a barometer of systemic injury in critical illness. The early reports of 25% encephalopathy from China are likely a gross underestimation, which we know occurs whenever delirium is not monitored with a valid tool. Indeed, patients with COVID-19 are at accelerated risk for delirium due to at least seven factors including (1) direct central nervous system (CNS) invasion, (2) induction of CNS inflammatory mediators, (3) secondary effect of other organ system failure, (4) effect of sedative strategies, (5) prolonged mechanical ventilation time, (6) immobilization, and (7) other needed but unfortunate environmental factors including social isolation and quarantine without family. Given early insights into the pathobiology of the virus, as well as the emerging interventions utilized to treat the critically ill patients, delirium prevention and management will prove exceedingly challenging, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU). The main focus during the COVID-19 pandemic lies within organizational issues, i.e., lack of ventilators, shortage of personal protection equipment, resource allocation, prioritization of limited mechanical ventilation options, and end-of-life care. However, the standard of care for ICU patients, including delirium management, must remain the highest quality possible with an eye towards long-term survival and minimization of issues related to post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). This article discusses how ICU professionals (e.g., physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacologists) can use our knowledge and resources to limit the burden of delirium on patients by reducing modifiable risk factors despite the imposed heavy workload and difficult clinical challenges posed by the pandemic.

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.

Delirium Monitoring in Neurocritically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The Society of Critical Care Medicine recommends routine delirium monitoring, based on data in critically ill patients without primary neurologic injury. We sought to answer whether there are valid and reliable tools to monitor delirium in neurocritically ill patients and whether delirium is associated with relevant clinical outcomes (e.g., survival, length of stay, functional independence, cognition) in this population. DATA SOURCES: We systematically reviewed Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, and PubMed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Inclusion criteria allowed any study design investigating delirium monitoring in neurocritically ill patients (e.g., neurotrauma, ischemic, and/or hemorrhagic stroke) of any age. We extracted data relevant to delirium tool sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, interrater reliability, and associated clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among seven prospective cohort studies and a total of 1,173 patients, delirium was assessed in neurocritically patients using validated delirium tools after considering primary neurologic diagnoses and associated complications, finding a pooled prevalence rate of 12-43%. When able to compare against a common reference standard, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, the test characteristics showed a sensitivity of 62-76%, specificity of 74-98%, positive predictive value of 63-91%, negative predictive value of 70-94%, and reliability kappa of 0.64-0.94. Among four studies reporting multivariable analyses, delirium in neurocritically patients was associated with increased hospital length of stay (n = 3) and ICU length of stay (n = 1), as well as worse functional independence (n = 1) and cognition (n = 2), but not survival. CONCLUSIONS: These data from studies of neurocritically ill patients demonstrate that patients with primary neurologic diagnoses can meet diagnostic criteria for delirium and that delirious features may predict relevant untoward clinical outcomes. There is a need for ongoing investigations regarding delirium in these complicated neurocritically ill patients.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU. DESIGN: Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017. METHODS: Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified. RESULTS: The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

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.

Long-term outcomes after treatment of delirium during critical illness with antipsychotics (MIND-USA): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common during critical illness and is associated with long-term cognitive impairment and disability. Antipsychotics are frequently used to treat delirium, but their effects on long-term outcomes are unknown. We aimed to investigate the effects of antipsychotic treatment of delirious, critically ill patients on long-term cognitive, functional, psychological, and quality-of-life outcomes. METHODS: This prespecified, long-term follow-up to the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 MIND-USA Study was conducted in 16 hospitals throughout the USA. Adults (aged ≥18 years) who had been admitted to an intensive care unit with respiratory failure or septic or cardiogenic shock were eligible for inclusion in the study if they had delirium. Participants were randomly assigned-using a computer-generated, permuted-block randomisation scheme with stratification by trial site and age-in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive intravenous placebo, haloperidol, or ziprasidone for up to 14 days. Investigators and participants were masked to treatment group assignment. 3 months and 12 months after randomisation, we assessed survivors' cognitive, functional, psychological, quality-of-life, and employment outcomes using validated telephone-administered tests and questionnaires. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01211522, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 7, 2011, and Aug 12, 2017, we screened 20 914 individuals, of whom 566 were eligible and consented or had consent provided to participate. Of these 566 patients, 184 were assigned to the placebo group, 192 to the haloperidol group, and 190 to the ziprasidone group. 1-year survival and follow-up rates were similar between groups. Cognitive impairment was common in all three treatment groups, with a third of survivors impaired at both 3-month and 12-month follow-up in all groups. More than half of the surveyed survivors in each group had cognitive or physical limitations (or both) that precluded employment at both 3-month and 12-month follow-up. At both 3 months and 12 months, neither haloperidol (adjusted odds ratio 1·22 [95% CI 0·73-2.04] at 3 months and 1·12 [0·60-2·11] at 12 months) nor ziprasidone (1·07 [0·59-1·96] at 3 months and 0·94 [0·62-1·44] at 12 months) significantly altered cognitive outcomes, as measured by the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status T score, compared with placebo. We also found no evidence that functional, psychological, quality-of-life, or employment outcomes improved with haloperidol or ziprasidone compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In delirious, critically ill patients, neither haloperidol nor ziprasidone had a significant effect on cognitive, functional, psychological, or quality-of-life outcomes among survivors. Our findings, along with insufficient evidence of short-term benefit and frequent inappropriate continuation of antipsychotics at hospital discharge, indicate that antipsychotics should not be used routinely to treat delirium in critically ill adults. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

Implementing delirium screening in the ICU: secrets to success.

OBJECTIVE: To review delirium screening tools available for use in the adult ICU and PICU, to review evidence-based delirium screening implementation, and to discuss common pitfalls encountered during delirium screening in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: Review of delirium screening literature and expert opinion. RESULTS: Over the past decade, tools specifically designed for use in critically ill adults and children have been developed and validated. Delirium screening has been effectively implemented across many ICU settings. Keys to effective implementation include addressing barriers to routine screening, multifaceted training such as lectures, case-based scenarios, one-on-one teaching, and real-time feedback of delirium screening, and interdisciplinary communication through discussion of a patient's delirium status during bedside rounds and through documentation systems. If delirium is present, clinicians should search for reversible or treatable causes because it is often multifactorial. CONCLUSION: Implementation of effective delirium screening is feasible but requires attention to implementation methods, including a change in the current ICU culture that believes delirium is inevitable or a normal part of a critical illness, to a future culture that views delirium as a dangerous syndrome which portends poor clinical outcomes and which is potentially modifiable depending on the individual patients circumstances.

Top 10 myths regarding sedation and delirium in the ICU.

The management of pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients can be complicated by multiple factors. Decisions to administer opioids, sedatives, and antipsychotic medications are frequently driven by a desire to facilitate patients' comfort and their tolerance of invasive procedures or other interventions within the ICU. Despite accumulating evidence supporting new strategies to optimize pain, sedation, and delirium practices in the ICU, many critical care practitioners continue to embrace false perceptions regarding appropriate management in these critically ill patients. This article explores these perceptions in more detail and offers new evidence-based strategies to help critical care practitioners better manage sedation and delirium, particularly in ICU patients.

Association between endothelial dysfunction and acute brain dysfunction during critical illness.

BACKGROUND: Acute brain dysfunction (delirium and coma) during critical illness is prevalent and costly, but the pathophysiology remains unclear. The relationship of acute brain dysfunction with endothelial function, which is impaired in critical illness and may contribute to alterations in cerebral blood flow and blood-brain barrier permeability, has not been studied. This study sought to determine whether systemic endothelial dysfunction is associated with acute brain dysfunction during critical illness. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, adult medical/surgical intensive care unit patients in shock and/or respiratory failure were enrolled. Endothelial function was assessed at enrollment using peripheral artery tonometry to calculate the reactive hyperemia index, with lower reactive hyperemia index indicative of worse endothelial function. Patients were assessed for coma and delirium with the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit. Multivariable linear regression was used to analyze the association between reactive hyperemia index and (1) delirium/coma-free days among all patients and (2) delirium duration among survivors, both over a 14-day period. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven patients with median age of 57 yr and median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 26 were enrolled. After adjusting for age, severity of illness, severe sepsis, preexisting cognitive function, medical versus surgical intensive care unit admission, and prehospital statin use, lower reactive hyperemia index (worse systemic endothelial function) was associated with fewer delirium/coma-free days (P = 0.02) and more delirium days (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, critically ill patients with lower vascular reactivity indicative of worse systemic endothelial function had increased duration of acute brain dysfunction.

Delirium monitoring in the ICU: strategies for initiating and sustaining screening efforts.

Delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with many negative outcomes, including increased length of stay in both the ICU and the hospital, increased duration of mechanical ventilation, increased mortality, worse long-term cognitive impairment, and increased costs. The 2013 American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM)/Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) clinical practice guidelines for pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD), based on available evidence, strongly recommend that critically ill patients be routinely monitored for delirium in the ICU using a validated tool. After conducting a thorough psychometric review of available delirium assessment tools, the 2013 PAD guideline group concluded that the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) are the ICU delirium screening tools with the strongest validity and reliability. This article discusses the importance and feasibility of delirium screening in the ICU and compares the most commonly used critical care delirium screening instruments. Strategies needed to implement and sustain delirium screening efforts in different critically ill populations are introduced and discussed. Accurate detection is the first step in managing ICU patients who develop delirium in an attempt to reduce the negative sequelae of delirium in this population.

Implementing the 2013 PAD guidelines: top ten points to consider.

It has been 10 years since the last publication of the clinical practice guidelines for pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium (PAD). The results of new studies have directed significant changes in critical care practice. Using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, the guidelines were revised, resulting in 32 recommendations and 22 summary statements. This article provides guidance toward guideline implementation strategies and outlines 10 key points to consider. Compared with its predecessor, the 2013 PAD guidelines are less prescriptive in that they recommend approaches to patient care rather than giving specific medication recommendations. This will help focus care teams on the process and structure of patient management and result in more flexibility when choosing specific medications. This article outlines approaches to guideline implementation that take into account the changes in philosophy surrounding medication selection. The manuscript focuses on the areas anticipated to generate the most change such as lighter sedation targets, avoidance of benzodiazepines, and early mobility. A gap analysis grid is provided. The release of any guideline should prompt reevaluation of current institutional practice standards. This manuscript uses the PAD guidelines as an example of how to approach the interprofessional work of guideline implementation.

An Exploration of Critical Care Professionals' Strategies to Enhance Daily Implementation of the Assess, Prevent, and Manage Pain; Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials; Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; Early Mobility and Exercise; and Family Engagement and Empowerment: A Group Concept Mapping Study.

The goals of this exploratory study were to engage professionals from the Society for Critical Care Medicine ICU Liberation Collaborative ICUs to: 1) conceptualize strategies to enhance daily implementation of the Assess, prevent, and manage pain; Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assess, prevent, and manage; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF) bundle from different perspectives and 2) identify strategies to prioritize for implementation. DESIGN: Mixed-methods group concept mapping over 8 months using an online method. Participants provided strategies in response to a prompt about what was needed for successful daily ABCDEF bundle implementation. Responses were summarized into a set of unique statements and then rated on a 5-point scale on degree of necessity (essential) and degree to which currently used. SETTING: Sixty-eight academic, community, and federal ICUs. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 121 ICU professionals consisting of frontline and leadership professionals. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A final set of 76 strategies (reduced from 188 responses) were suggested: education (16 strategies), collaboration (15 strategies), processes and protocols (13 strategies), feedback (10 strategies), sedation/pain practices (nine strategies), education (eight strategies), and family (five strategies). Nine strategies were rated as very essential but infrequently used: adequate staffing, adequate mobility equipment, attention to (patient's) sleep, open discussion and collaborative problem solving, nonsedation methods to address ventilator dyssynchrony, specific expectations for night and day shifts, education of whole team on interdependent nature of the bundle, and effective sleep protocol. CONCLUSIONS: In this concept mapping study, ICU professionals provided strategies that spanned a number of conceptual implementation clusters. Results can be used by ICU leaders for implementation planning to address context-specific interdisciplinary approaches to improve ABCDEF bundle implementation.

Cognitive and physical rehabilitation of intensive care unit survivors: results of the RETURN randomized controlled pilot investigation.

BACKGROUND: Millions of patients who survive medical and surgical general intensive care unit care every year experience newly acquired long-term cognitive impairment and profound physical and functional disabilities. To overcome the current reality in which patients receive inadequate rehabilitation, we devised a multifaceted, in-home, telerehabilitation program implemented using social workers and psychology technicians with the goal of improving cognitive and functional outcomes. METHODS: This was a single-site, feasibility, pilot, randomized trial of 21 general medical/surgical intensive care unit survivors (8 controls and 13 intervention patients) with either cognitive or functional impairment at hospital discharge. After discharge, study controls received usual care (sporadic rehabilitation), whereas intervention patients received a combination of in-home cognitive, physical, and functional rehabilitation over a 3-month period via a social worker or master's level psychology technician utilizing telemedicine to allow specialized multidisciplinary treatment. Interventions over 12 wks included six in-person visits for cognitive rehabilitation and six televisits for physical/functional rehabilitation. Outcomes were measured at the completion of the rehabilitation program (i.e., at 3 months), with cognitive functioning as the primary outcome. Analyses were conducted using linear regression to examine differences in 3-month outcomes between treatment groups while adjusting for baseline scores. RESULTS: Patients tolerated the program with only one adverse event reported. At baseline both groups were well-matched. At 3-month follow-up, intervention group patients demonstrated significantly improved cognitive executive functioning on the widely used and well-normed Tower test (for planning and strategic thinking) vs. controls (median [interquartile range], 13.0 [11.5-14.0] vs. 7.5 [4.0-8.5]; adjusted p < .01). Intervention group patients also reported better performance (i.e., lower score) on one of the most frequently used measures of functional status (Functional Activities Questionnaire at 3 months vs. controls, 1.0 [0.0 -3.0] vs. 8.0 [6.0-11.8], adjusted p = .04). CONCLUSIONS: A multicomponent rehabilitation program for intensive care unit survivors combining cognitive, physical, and functional training appears feasible and possibly effective in improving cognitive performance and functional outcomes in just 3 months. Future investigations with a larger sample size should be conducted to build on this pilot feasibility program and to confirm these results, as well as to elucidate the elements of rehabilitation contributing most to improved outcomes.

Effects of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative on ABCDEF Bundle Implementation.

BACKGROUND: The ABCDEF bundle (Assess, prevent, and manage pain and Delirium; Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia/sedation; Early mobility; and Family engagement) improves intensive care unit outcomes, but adoption into practice is poor. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of quality improvement collaborative participation on ABCDEF bundle performance. METHODS: This interrupted time series analysis included 20 months of bundle performance data from 15 226 adults admitted to 68 US intensive care units. Segmented regression models were used to quantify complete and individual bundle element performance changes over time and compare performance patterns before (6 months) and after (14 months) collaborative initiation. RESULTS: Complete bundle performance rates were very low at baseline (<4%) but increased to 12% by the end. Complete bundle performance increased by 2 percentage points (SE, 0.9; P = .06) immediately after collaborative initiation. Each subsequent month was associated with an increase of 0.6 percentage points (SE, 0.2; P = .04). Performance rates increased significantly immediately after initiation for pain assessment (7.6% [SE, 2.0%], P = .002), sedation assessment (9.1% [SE, 3.7%], P = .02), and family engagement (7.8% [SE, 3%], P = .02) and then increased monthly at the same speed as the trend in the baseline period. Performance rates were lowest for spontaneous awakening/breathing trials and early mobility. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement collaborative participation resulted in clinically meaningful, but small and variable, improvements in bundle performance. Opportunities remain to improve adoption of sedation, mechanical ventilation, and early mobility practices.