Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 With Acute Encephalopathy and Coma: An International Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To report the prevalence of acute encephalopathy and outcomes in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to identify determinants of 90-day outcomes. METHODS: Data from adults with severe COVID-19 and acute encephalopathy were prospectively collected for patients requiring intensive care unit management in 31 university or university-affiliated intensive care units in 6 countries (France, United States, Colombia, Spain, Mexico, and Brazil) between March and September of 2020. Acute encephalopathy was defined, as recently recommended, as subsyndromal delirium or delirium or as a comatose state in case of severely decreased level of consciousness. Logistic multivariable regression was performed to identify factors associated with 90-day outcomes. A Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) score of 1-4 was considered a poor outcome (indicating death, vegetative state, or severe disability). RESULTS: Of 4,060 patients admitted with COVID-19, 374 (9.2%) experienced acute encephalopathy at or before the intensive care unit (ICU) admission. A total of 199/345 (57.7%) patients had a poor outcome at 90-day follow-up as evaluated by the GOS-E (29 patients were lost to follow-up). On multivariable analysis, age older than 70 years (odds ratio [OR] 4.01, 95% CI 2.25-7.15), presumed fatal comorbidity (OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.68-9.44), Glasgow coma scale score <9 before/at ICU admission (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.22-3.98), vasopressor/inotrope support during ICU stay (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.97-7.76), renal replacement therapy during ICU stay (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.21-4.50), and CNS ischemic or hemorrhagic complications as acute encephalopathy etiology (OR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41-7.82) were independently associated with higher odds of poor 90-day outcome. Status epilepticus, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome were associated with lower odds of poor 90-day outcome (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.83). DISCUSSION: In this observational study, we found a low prevalence of acute encephalopathy at ICU admission in patients with COVID-19. More than half of patients with COVID-19 presenting with acute encephalopathy had poor outcomes as evaluated by GOS-E. Determinants of poor 90-day outcome were dominated by older age, comorbidities, degree of impairment of consciousness before/at ICU admission, association with other organ failures, and acute encephalopathy etiology. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04320472.

Assessing validity evidence for a serious game dedicated to patient clinical deterioration and communication.

BACKGROUND: A serious game (SG) is a useful tool for nurse training. The objectives of this study were to assess validity evidence of a new SG designed to improve nurses' ability to detect patient clinical deterioration. METHODS: The SG (LabForGames Warning) was developed through interaction between clinical and pedagogical experts and one developer. For the game study, consenting nurses were divided into three groups: nursing students (pre-graduate) (group S), recently graduated nurses (graduated < 2 years before the study) (group R) and expert nurses (graduated > 4 years before the study and working in an ICU) (group E). Each volunteer played three cases of the game (haemorrhage, brain trauma and obstructed intestinal tract). The validity evidence was assessed following Messick's framework: content, response process (questionnaire, observational analysis), internal structure, relations to other variables (by scoring each case and measuring playing time) and consequences (a posteriori analysis). RESULTS: The content validity was supported by the game design produced by clinical, pedagogical and interprofessional experts in accordance with the French nurse training curriculum, literature review and pilot testing. Seventy-one nurses participated in the study: S (n = 25), R (n = 25) and E (n = 21). The content validity in all three cases was highly valued by group E. The response process evidence was supported by good security control. There was no significant difference in the three groups' high rating of the game's realism, satisfaction and educational value. All participants stated that their knowledge of the different steps of the clinical reasoning process had improved. Regarding the internal structure, the factor analysis showed a common source of variance between the steps of the clinical reasoning process and communication or the situational awareness errors made predominantly by students. No statistical difference was observed between groups regarding scores and playing time. A posteriori analysis of the results of final examinations assessing study-related topics found no significant difference between group S participants and students who did not participate in the study. CONCLUSION: While it appears that this SG cannot be used for summative assessment (score validity undemonstrated), it is positively valued as an educational tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03092440.