Comparison of chest compression quality between the overlapping hands and interlocking hands techniques: A randomised cross-over trial.

BACKGROUND: Performing quality chest compressions is fundamental to the management of cardiopulmonary arrest. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two hand positions: overlapping versus interlocking for performing chest compressions during cardiopulmonary arrest. METHODS: The HP2C (for Hands Position and Chest Compression) was a prospective, randomised, open-label, cross-over, single-centre study. Participants were recruited from the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) teams and the prehospital firefighter teams. They were randomised to start chest compressions either with overlapping or interlocking hands and then performed the other technique after a washout period. The judgement criteria were the overall chest compressions success score generated by software in accordance with ILCOR recommendations, the quality of compression, release, rate and subjective intensity measured with the Borg scale. RESULTS: A total of 100 participants were included in the study. The mean age of the caregivers was 38 ± 9.3 years. The median CPR score was 79.5% IQR [48.5-94.0] in the overlapping hands group and 71% IQR [38.0-92.8] in the interlocking hands group (p-value = 0.37). There was no significant difference for the other criteria, especially no difference in term of intensity of effort. However, there was a trend towards better results with overlapping hands. CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate a difference in effectiveness between overlapping and interlocking hand chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Prevalence of pressure injuries among critically ill patients and factors associated with their occurrence in the intensive care unit: The PRESSURE study.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of pressure injuries (PIs) in critically ill patients has been extensively studied, but there is uncertainty regarding the risk factors. The main objective of this study was to describe the prevalence of PIs in critically ill patients. Secondary objectives were to describe PI, use of preventive measures for PI, and factors associated with occurrence of PI in the intensive care unit (ICU). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a 1-day point-prevalence study performed on a weekday in June 2017 in ICUs in France. On the same day, we noted the presence or absence of PI in all hospitalised patients of the participating ICUs, data on the ICUs, and the characteristics of patients and of PI. RESULTS: Eighty-six participating ICUs allowed the inclusion of 1228 patients. The prevalence of PI on the study day was 18.7% (95% confidence interval: 16.6-21.0). PIs acquired in the ICU were observed in 12.5% (95% confidence interval: 10.6-14.3) of critically ill patients on the study day. The most frequent locations of PI were the sacrum (57.4%), heel (35.2%), and face (8.7%). Severe forms of PI accounted for 40.8% of all PIs. Antiulcer mattresses were used in 91.5% of the patients, and active and/or passive mobilisation was performed for all the patients. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified longer length of stay in the ICU, a higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score, higher body weight, motor neurological disorder, high-dose steroids, and absence of oral nutrition on the study day as factors independently associated with occurrence of PI in the ICU. CONCLUSION: This large point-prevalence study shows that PIs are found in about one of five critically ill patients despite extensive use of devices for preventing PI. Acquisition of PI in the ICU is strongly related to the patient's severity of illness on admission to the ICU and length of stay in the ICU.

Minimising haemodynamic lability during changeover of syringes infusing norepinephrine in adult critical care patients: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Arterial pressure lability is common during the process of replacing syringes used for norepinephrine infusions in critically ill patients. It is unclear if there is an optimal approach to minimise arterial pressure instability during this procedures. We investigated whether 'double pumping' changeover (DPC) or automated changeover (AC) reduced blood pressure lability in critically ill adults compared with quick syringe changeover (QC). METHODS: Patients requiring a norepinephrine infusion syringe change were randomised in a non-blinded trial undertaken in six ICUs. Randomisation was minimised by norepinephrine flow rate at inclusion and centre. The primary outcome was the frequency of increased/decreased mean arterial pressure (defined by 15 mm Hg from baseline measurements) within 15 min of switching the syringe compared with QC. RESULTS: Patients (mean age: 64 (range:18-88)) yr were randomly assigned to QC (n=95), DPC (n=95), or AC (n=96). Increased MAP was the commonest consequence of syringe changeovers. MAP variability was most frequent after DPC (89/224 changeovers; 39.7%) compared with 57/223 (25.6%) changeovers after quick syringe switch and 46/181 (25.4%) in patients randomised to receive automated changeover (P=0.001). Fewer events occurred with QC compared with DPC (P=0.002). Sensitivity analysis based on mixed models showed that performing several changeovers on a single patient had no impact. Both type of changeover and norepinephrine dose before syringe changeover were independently associated with MAP variations >15 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Quick changeover of norepinephrine syringes was associated with less blood pressure lability compared with DPC. The prevalence of MAP variations was the same between AC and QC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02304939.

Nurses' moral judgements during emergency department triage - A prospective mixed multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: In EDs, triage ensures that patients whose condition requires immediate care are prioritized while reducing overcrowding. Previous studies have described the manifestation of caregivers' moral judgements of patients in EDs. The equal treatment of patients in clinical practice presents a major issue. Studying the impact of prejudice on clinical practice in the ED setting provides an opportunity to rethink clinical tools, organizations and future training needs. Our study sought to describe the moral judgements expressed by triage nurses during admission interviews in emergency departments and to assess their impact on patient management. METHODS: An exploratory sequential mixed-method study was performed. The study was conducted between January 1, 2018, and February 18, 2018, in the EDs of three French hospitals. Five hundred and three patients and 79 triage nurses participated in the study. Audio recordings, observations and written handover reports made by nurses during admission triage interviews were analyzed with a view to discerning whether moral judgements were expressed in them. We studied the impact of moral judgements on patient management in the emergency department. RESULTS: Abstract Moral judgements were made in 70% of the triage situations studied (n=351/503). They could be classified in seven categories. Patients were more likely to be subjected to moral judgements if they were over 75 years old, visibly disabled or if they had visible signs of alcohol intoxication. Being subjected to moral judgement was associated with differential treatment, including assignment of a triage score that differed from the theoretical triage score. CONCLUSION: More than two thirds of patients admitted to EDs were triaged using moral criteria. Patients who were morally judged at the admission interview were more likely to be treated differently.

Barriers to research findings utilization amongst critical care nurses and allied health professionals: An international survey.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the perceived barriers to the implementation of research findings in clinical practice among critical care nurses and allied health professionals. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire sent to critical care nurses and allied health professionals in French-speaking countries. The primary objective was the identification and grading of perceived barriers to implementation of research findings into clinical practice, using a previously validated tool (French version of the BARRIERS scale). The scale is divided into 4 dimensions, each containing 6 to 7 questions to be answered using a 4-point Likert scale (1: no barrier, 4: great barrier). Descriptive statistics were performed and weighted score per dimensions were compared. Univariate and multivariate linear regressions were performed to identify factors associated with the total score by dimension. RESULTS: A total of 994 nurses and allied health professionals (85.1 % of ICU nurses) from 5 countries (71.8 % from France) responded to the survey. Main reported barriers to research findings utilization were "Statistical analyses are not understandable" (54.5 %), "Research articles are not readily available" (54.3 %), and "Implications for practice are not made clear" (54.2 %). Weighted scores differed between dimensions, with the "communication" and "organization" dimensions being the greatest barriers (median [IQR]: 2.3 [1.8-2.7] and 2.0 [1.6-2.4], while the "adopter" and "innovation" dimensions having lower scores (1.5 [1.2-1.8] and 1.5 [1.0-1.8] (all pairwise comparisons p-value < 0.0001, except for the adopter vs. innovation comparison, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Accessibility and understanding of research results seem to be the main barriers to research utilization in practice by respondents. A large number of the reported barriers could be overcome through education and organizational change. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Promoting a research culture among nurses and allied health professionals is an issue that needs investment. This should include training in critical reading of scientific articles and statistics.

Effect on comfort of administering bubble-humidified or dry oxygen: the Oxyrea non-inferiority randomized study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical interest of using bubble humidification of oxygen remains controversial. This study was designed to further explore whether delivering dry oxygen instead of bubble-moistened oxygen had an impact on discomfort of ICU patients. METHODS: This randomized multicenter non-inferiority open trial included patients admitted in intensive care unit and receiving oxygen. Any patient receiving non-humidified oxygen (between 0 and 15 L/min) for less than 2 h could participate in the study. Randomization was stratified based on the flow rate at inclusion (less or more than 4 L/min). Discomfort was assessed 6-8 and 24 h after inclusion using a dedicated 15-item scale (quoted from 0 to 150). RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-four ICU patients receiving non-humidified oxygen were randomized either in the humidified (HO) (n = 172), using bubble humidifiers, or in the non-humidified (NHO) (n = 182) arms. In modified intention-to-treat analysis at H6-H8, the 15-item score was 26.6 ± 19.4 and 29.8 ± 23.4 in the HO and NHO groups, respectively. The absolute difference between scores in both groups was 3.2 [90% CI 0.0; + 6.5] for a non-inferiority margin of 5.3, meaning that the non-inferiority analysis was not conclusive. This was also true for the subgroups of patients receiving either less or more than 4 L/min of oxygen. At H24, using NHO was not inferior compared to HO in the general population and in the subgroup of patients receiving 4 L/min or less of oxygen. However, for patients receiving more than 4 L/min, a post hoc superiority analysis suggested that patients receiving dry oxygen were less comfortable. CONCLUSIONS: Oxygen therapy-related discomfort was low. Dry oxygen could not be demonstrated as non-inferior compared to bubble-moistened oxygen after 6-8 h of oxygen administration. At 24 h, dry oxygen was non-inferior compared to bubble-humidified oxygen for flows below 4 L/min.