Multidisciplinary expert panel report on fluid stewardship: perspectives and practice.

Although effective and appropriate fluid management is a critical aspect of quality care during hospitalization, the widespread adoption of consistent policies that ensure adequate fluid stewardship has been slow and heterogenous. Despite evidence-based guidelines on fluid management being available, clinical opinions continue to diverge on important aspects of care in this setting, and the consistency of guideline implementation is far from ideal. A multidisciplinary panel of leading practitioners and experts convened to discuss best practices for ongoing staff education, intravenous fluid therapy, new training technologies, and strategies to track the success of institutional fluid stewardship efforts. Fluid leads should be identified in every hospital to ensure consistency in fluid administration and monitoring. In this article, strategies to communicate the importance of effective fluid stewardship for the purposes of education, training, institutional support, and improvement of patient outcomes are reviewed and recommendations are summarized.

Introducing NICE guidelines for intravenous fluid therapy into a district general hospital.

BACKGROUND: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on intravenous fluid prescribing for adults in hospital, issued in 2013, advised less use of 0.9% sodium chloride than current practice, provided a logical system for prescribing and suggested further study of electrolyte abnormalities. AIMS: To describe the steps taken to establish and monitor guideline introduction and to assess effects on clinical biochemistry results, in a general hospital setting. METHODS: We used established principles of change to modify education, teaching, record keeping and audit throughout the hospital, changed the availability of intravenous fluid preparations in the wards and monitored the use of intravenous fluids. We anonymously linked local clinical chemistry records to nationally available patient records (NHS Scotland SMR01). We chose specified medical emergencies, and major emergency and elective general and orthopaedic surgery, where management would require intravenous fluids, for a two-phase cross-sectional study between 2007 and 2017, spanning the change in prescribing. Primary outcomes were abnormal bicarbonate, sodium, potassium and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and secondary outcomes were mortality and length of stay. RESULTS: Over the study period, sodium chloride 0.9% use decreased by 75%, and overall intravenous fluid use decreased from 0.65 to 0.40 L/occupied bed day. The incidence of acidosis decreased from 7.4% to 4.8% of all admissions (difference -2.7%, 95% CI -2.1 to -3.0). No important changes in other electrolytes were noted; in particular, plasma sodium values showed no adverse effects. Stage 1 AKI increased from 6.7% to 9.0% (difference 2.3%, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.0), but other causes for this cannot be excluded. Mortality and length of stay showed no adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Effective implementation of the guidelines required substantial time, effort and resource. NICE suggestions of fluid types for maintenance appear appropriate, but prescribed volumes continue to require careful clinical judgement.

Staff education, regular sedation and analgesia quality feedback, and a sedation monitoring technology for improving sedation and analgesia quality for critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal sedation of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) requires the avoidance of pain, agitation, and unnecessary deep sedation, but these outcomes are challenging to achieve. Excessive sedation can prolong ICU stay, whereas light sedation can increase pain and frightening memories, which are commonly recalled by ICU survivors. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of three interventions to improve sedation and analgesia quality: an online education programme; regular feedback of sedation-analgesia quality data; and use of a novel sedation-monitoring technology (the Responsiveness Index [RI]). METHODS: We did a cluster randomised trial in eight ICUs, which were randomly allocated to receive education alone (two ICUs), education plus sedation-analgesia quality feedback (two ICUs), education plus RI monitoring technology (two ICUs), or all three interventions (two ICUs). Randomisation was done with computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified according to recruitment start date. A 45 week baseline period was followed by a 45 week intervention period, separated by an 8 week implementation period in which the interventions were introduced. ICU and research staff were not masked to study group assignment during the intervention period. All mechanically ventilated patients were potentially eligible. We assessed patients' sedation-analgesia quality for each 12 h period of nursing care, and sedation-related adverse events daily. Our primary outcome was the proportion of care periods with optimal sedation-analgesia, defined as being free from excessive sedation, agitation, poor limb relaxation, and poor ventilator synchronisation. Analysis used multilevel generalised linear mixed modelling to explore intervention effects in a single model taking clustering and patient-level factors into account. A concurrent mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken to help understand the trial findings. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01634451. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2014, we included 881 patients (9187 care periods) during the baseline period and 591 patients (6947 care periods) during the intervention period. During the baseline period, optimal sedation-analgesia was present for 5150 (56%) care periods. We found a significant improvement in optimal sedation-analgesia with RI monitoring (odds ratio [OR] 1·44 [95% CI 1·07-1·95]; p=0·017), which was mainly due to increased periods free from excessive sedation (OR 1·59 [1·09-2·31]) and poor ventilator synchronisation (OR 1·55 [1·05-2·30]). However, more patients experienced sedation-related adverse events (OR 1·91 [1·02-3·58]). We found no improvement in overall optimal sedation-analgesia with education (OR 1·13 [95% CI 0·86-1·48]), but fewer patients experienced sedation-related adverse events (OR 0·56 [0·32-0·99]). The sedation-analgesia quality data feedback did not improve quality (OR 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]) or sedation-related adverse events (OR 1·15 [0·61-2·15]). The process evaluation suggested many clinicians found the RI monitoring useful, but it was often not used for decision making as intended. Education was valued and considered useful by staff. By contrast, sedation-analgesia quality feedback was poorly understood and thought to lack relevance to bedside nursing practice. INTERPRETATION: Combination of RI monitoring and online education has the potential to improve sedation-analgesia quality and patient safety in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. The RI monitoring seemed to improve sedation-analgesia quality, but inconsistent adoption by bedside nurses limited its impact. The online education programme resulted in a clinically relevant improvement in patient safety and was valued by nurses, but any changes to behaviours did not seem to alter other measures of sedation-analgesia quality. Providing sedation-analgesia quality feedback to ICUs did not appear to improve any quality metrics, probably because staff did not think it relevant to bedside practice. FUNDING: Chief Scientist Office, Scotland; GE Healthcare.

Development of Process Control Methodology for Tracking the Quality and Safety of Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Management in Critical Care Units.

OBJECTIVE: To develop sedation, pain, and agitation quality measures using process control methodology and evaluate their properties in clinical practice. DESIGN: A Sedation Quality Assessment Tool was developed and validated to capture data for 12-hour periods of nursing care. Domains included pain/discomfort and sedation-agitation behaviors; sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking drug administration; ventilation status; and conditions potentially justifying deep sedation. Predefined sedation-related adverse events were recorded daily. Using an iterative process, algorithms were developed to describe the proportion of care periods with poor limb relaxation, poor ventilator synchronization, unnecessary deep sedation, agitation, and an overall optimum sedation metric. Proportion charts described processes over time (2 monthly intervals) for each ICU. The numbers of patients treated between sedation-related adverse events were described with G charts. Automated algorithms generated charts for 12 months of sequential data. Mean values for each process were calculated, and variation within and between ICUs explored qualitatively. SETTING: Eight Scottish ICUs over a 12-month period. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Sedation Quality Assessment Tool agitation-sedation domains correlated with the Richmond Sedation Agitation Scale score (Spearman ρ = 0.75) and were reliable in clinician-clinician (weighted kappa; κ = 0.66) and clinician-researcher (κ = 0.82) comparisons. The limb movement domain had fair correlation with Behavioral Pain Scale (ρ = 0.24) and was reliable in clinician-clinician (κ = 0.58) and clinician-researcher (κ = 0.45) comparisons. Ventilator synchronization correlated with Behavioral Pain Scale (ρ = 0.54), and reliability in clinician-clinician (κ = 0.29) and clinician-researcher (κ = 0.42) comparisons was fair-moderate. Eight hundred twenty-five patients were enrolled (range, 59-235 across ICUs), providing 12,385 care periods for evaluation (range 655-3,481 across ICUs). The mean proportion of care periods with each quality metric varied between ICUs: excessive sedation 12-38%; agitation 4-17%; poor relaxation 13-21%; poor ventilator synchronization 8-17%; and overall optimum sedation 45-70%. Mean adverse event intervals ranged from 1.5 to 10.3 patients treated. The quality measures appeared relatively stable during the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: Process control methodology can be used to simultaneously monitor multiple aspects of pain-sedation-agitation management within ICUs. Variation within and between ICUs could be used as triggers to explore practice variation, improve quality, and monitor this over time.