Effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions to prevent adverse events in the intensive care unit: A review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Different types of interventions have been assessed for the prevention of adverse events. However, determining which patient-safety practice is most effective can be challenging when there is no systematised evidence synthesis. An overview following the best methodological standards can provide the best reliable integrative evidence. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to provide an overview of effectiveness nonpharmacological interventions aimed at preventing adverse events in the intensive care unit. METHODS: A review of systematic reviews (SRs) was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA recommendations. PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched for SRs published until March 2022. Two reviewers independently assessed the study's quality, using AMSTAR-2, and extracted data on intervention characteristics and effect on prevention of adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-seven SRs were included, and 27 nonpharmacological interventions were identified to prevent 11 adverse events. Most of the reviews had critically low methodological quality. Among all the identified interventions, subglottic secretion drainage, semirecumbent position, and kinetic bed therapy were effective in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia; the use of earplugs, early mobilisation, family participation, and music in reducing delirium; physical rehabilitation in improving muscle strength; use of respiratory support in preventing reintubation; the use of a computerised physician order entry system in reducing risk of medication errors; and the use of heated water humidifier was effective in reducing artificial airway occlusion. CONCLUSIONS: Some nonpharmacological interventions reduced adverse events in the intensive care setting. These findings should be interpreted carefully due to the low methodological quality. SRs on preventing adverse events in the intensive care unit should adhere to quality assessment tools so that best evidence can be used in decision-making.

Medication errors in prescription and administration in critically ill patients.

AIM: To determine the prevalence and magnitude of medication errors and their association with patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and nurses' work conditions. DESIGN: An observational, analytical, cross-sectional and ambispective study was conducted in critically ill adult patients. METHODS: Data concerning prescription errors were collected retrospectively from medical records and administration errors were identified through direct observation of nurses during drug administration. Those data were collected between April and July 2015. RESULTS: A total of 650 prescription errors were identified for 961 drugs in 90 patients (mean error 7[SD 4.1] per patient) and prevalence of 47.1% (95% CI 44-50). The most frequent error was omission of the prescribed medication. Intensive care unit stay was a risk factor associated with omission error (OR 2.14; 1.46-3.14: p < .01). A total of 294 administration errors were identified for 249 drugs in 52 patients (mean error 6 [SD 6.7] per patient) and prevalence of 73.5% (95% CI 68-79). The most frequent error was interruption during drug administration. Admission to the intensive care unit (OR 0.37; 0.21-0.66: p < .01), nurses' morning shift (OR 2.15; 1.10-4.18: p = .02) and workload perception (OR 3.64; 2.09-6.35: p < .01) were risk factors associated with interruption. CONCLUSIONS: Medication errors in prescription and administration were frequent. Timely detection of errors and promotion of a medication safety culture are necessary to reduce them and ensure the quality of care in critically ill patients. IMPACT: Medication errors occur frequently in the intensive care unit but are not always identified. Due to the vulnerability of seriously ill patients and the specialized care they require, an error can result in serious adverse events. The study shows that medication errors in prescription and administration are recurrent but preventable. These findings contribute to promote awareness in the proper use of medications and guarantee the quality of nursing care.

Evaluating Patient Identification Practices During Intrahospital Transfers: A Human Factors Approach.

INTRODUCTION: Reliable patient identification is essential for safe care, and failures may cause patient harm. Identification can be interfered with by system factors, including working conditions, technology, organizational barriers, and inadequate communications protocols. The study aims to explore systems factors contributing to patient identification errors during intrahospital transfers. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study through direct observation and interviews with porters during intrahospital patient transfers. Data were analyzed using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety human factors model. The patient transfer process was mapped and compared with the institutional Positive Patient Identification policy. Potential system failures were identified using a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis. RESULTS: A total of 60 patient transfer handovers were observed. In none of the evaluable cases observed, patient identification was conducted correctly according to the hospital policy at every step of the process. The principal system factor responsible was organizational failure, followed by technology and team culture issues. The Failure Modes and Effects Analysis methodology revealed that miscommunication between staff and lack of key patient information put patient safety at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Patient identification during intrahospital patient transfer is a high-risk event because several factors and many people interact. In this study, the disconnect between the policy and the reality of the workplace left staff and patients vulnerable to the consequences of misidentification. Where a policy is known to be substantially different from work as done, urgent revision is required to eliminate the serious risks associated with the unguided evolution of working practice.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Case Management in Advanced Heart Failure Patients Attended in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

AIMS: Nurse-led case management (CM) may improve quality of life (QoL) for advanced heart failure (HF) patients. No systematic review (SR), however, has summarized its effectiveness/cost-effectiveness. We aimed to evaluate the effect of such programs in primary care settings in advanced HF patients. We examined and summarized evidence on QoL, mortality, hospitalization, self-care, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND RESULTS: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Clinical Trials, WHO, Registry of International Clinical Trials, and Central Cochrane were searched up to March 2022. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria instrument to assess risk-of-bias in economic evaluations, Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 for clinical trials, and an adaptation of Robins-I for quasi-experimental and cohort studies were employed. Results from nurse-led CM programs did not reduce mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.15; participants = 1345; studies = 6; I2 = 47%). They decreased HF hospitalizations (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.91; participants = 1989; studies = 8; I2 = 0%) and all-cause ones (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; participants = 1012; studies = 5; I2 = 36%). QoL improved in medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.32; participants = 1228; studies = 8; I2 = 28%), and self-care was not statistically significant improved (SMD 0.66, 95% CI -0.84 to 2.17; participants = 450; studies = 3; I2 = 97%). A wide variety of costs ranging from USD 4975 to EUR 27,538 was observed. The intervention was cost-effective at ≤EUR 60,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led CM reduces all-cause hospital admissions and HF hospitalizations but not all-cause mortality. QoL improved at medium-term follow-up. Such programs could be cost-effective in high-income countries.

Patient decision aids for adults with advanced chronic kidney disease with a medical recommendation to start dialysis: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This review will identify and describe the content and assess the quality of available decision aids aimed at adults with advanced chronic kidney disease with medical indication to start dialysis who need to choose one of the two dialysis modalities. INTRODUCTION: The lack of evidence regarding the superiority of the different options for dialysis, hemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis, indicated in advanced chronic kidney disease, makes the shared decision-making process especially important. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We will include decision aids from published studies and non-published material aimed at adults with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We will perform searches in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos. In addition, we will search unpublished studies in OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Open Access Theses and Dissertations. We will also identify decision aids through a specific search in Google and by searching websites of nephrology societies or associations. We will include decision aids in English or Spanish aimed at adults with advanced chronic kidney disease with medical indication to start dialysis. Two independent reviewers will screen, select, and extract the data. General aspects and attributes of the decision aids will be collected. Their quality will be evaluated, and their recommendations for implementation in clinical practice will be analyzed.

Descriptive and follow-up study of patients treated surgically for abdominal aortic aneurysm at tertiary hospitals in Spain.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess potential variability in the clinical characteristics and treatment of patients undergoing elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) across five hospitals in Spain. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with AAA and treated with open surgical repair (OSR) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). We evaluated clinical and demographic variables, including comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]); anatomic characteristics; surgical risk (ASA Score); aneurysm characteristics; and in-hospital and overall mortality. All patients were followed for three years. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients were included, mean age 72.5 (standard deviation [SD], 8.4), mean CCI 2.04 (SD, 1.9). The surgical technique was EVAR in 46.8% of cases (N.=87) and OSR in 53.2% (N.=99). The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.2%, with no differences between groups. The overall mortality rate during follow-up (mean, 2.9 years) was 24.1% for EVAR versus 8.1% for the OSR group (odds ratio [OR], 3.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.60-3.64; P=0.004). EVAR was the only independent risk factor for mortality (OR, 3.89; 95% CI: 3.87-3.92; P=0.004). Inter-center variability in the type of surgery was high, with EVAR accounting for 19.4% to 75% of the surgical procedures, depending on the treating center (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study the in-hospital mortality rates for elective EVAR and OSR were similar. However, after the follow-up, patients who underwent EVAR had a three-fold greater mortality rate than those treated with OSR. There was substantial inter-hospital variability, underscoring the need to standardize treatment selection in patients who undergo elective surgery for AAA repair.