Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Glycemic Control for Critically Ill Children and Adults 2024.

RATIONALE: Maintaining glycemic control of critically ill patients may impact outcomes such as survival, infection, and neuromuscular recovery, but there is equipoise on the target blood levels, monitoring frequency, and methods. OBJECTIVES: The purpose was to update the 2012 Society of Critical Care Medicine and American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) guidelines with a new systematic review of the literature and provide actionable guidance for clinicians. PANEL DESIGN: The total multiprofessional task force of 22, consisting of clinicians and patient/family advocates, and a methodologist applied the processes described in the ACCM guidelines standard operating procedure manual to develop evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach (GRADE) methodology. Conflict of interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including panel selection and voting. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes question related to glycemic management in critically ill children (≥ 42 wk old adjusted gestational age to 18 yr old) and adults, including triggers for initiation of insulin therapy, route of administration, monitoring frequency, role of an explicit decision support tool for protocol maintenance, and methodology for glucose testing. We identified the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as a good practice statement. In addition, "In our practice" statements were included when the available evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, but the panel felt that describing their practice patterns may be appropriate. Additional topics were identified for future research. RESULTS: This guideline is an update of the guidelines for the use of an insulin infusion for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. It is intended for adult and pediatric practitioners to reassess current practices and direct research into areas with inadequate literature. The panel issued seven statements related to glycemic control in unselected adults (two good practice statements, four conditional recommendations, one research statement) and seven statements for pediatric patients (two good practice statements, one strong recommendation, one conditional recommendation, two "In our practice" statements, and one research statement), with additional detail on specific subset populations where available. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel achieved consensus for adults and children regarding a preference for an insulin infusion for the acute management of hyperglycemia with titration guided by an explicit clinical decision support tool and frequent (≤ 1 hr) monitoring intervals during glycemic instability to minimize hypoglycemia and against targeting intensive glucose levels. These recommendations are intended for consideration within the framework of the patient's existing clinical status. Further research is required to evaluate the role of individualized glycemic targets, continuous glucose monitoring systems, explicit decision support tools, and standardized glycemic control metrics.

Prevalence and Impact of Unknown Diabetes in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: Many patients with diabetes and their care providers are unaware of the presence of the disease. Dysglycemia encompassing hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glucose variability is common in the ICU in patients with and without diabetes. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of unknown diabetes on glycemic control in the ICU. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Nine ICUs in an academic, tertiary hospital and a hybrid academic/community hospital. PATIENTS: Hemoglobin A1c levels were ordered at all ICU admissions from March 1, 2011 to September 30, 2013. Electronic medical records were examined for a history of antihyperglycemic medications or International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition diagnosis of diabetes. Patients were categorized as having unknown diabetes (hemoglobin A1c > 6.5%, without history of diabetes), no diabetes (hemoglobin A1c < 6.5%, without history of diabetes), controlled known diabetes (hemoglobin A1c < 6.5%, with documented history of diabetes), and uncontrolled known diabetes (hemoglobin A1c > 6.5%, with documented history of diabetes). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 15,737 patients had an hemoglobin A1c and medical record evaluable for the history of diabetes, and 5,635 patients had diabetes diagnosed by either medical history or an elevated hemoglobin A1c in the ICU. Of these, 1,460 patients had unknown diabetes, accounting for 26.0% of all patients with diabetes. This represented 41.0% of patients with an hemoglobin A1c > 6.5% and 9.3% of all ICU patients. Compared with patients without diabetes, patients with unknown diabetes had a higher likelihood of requiring an insulin infusion (44.3% vs 29.3%; p < 0.0001), a higher average blood glucose (172 vs 126 mg/dL; p < 0.0001), an increased percentage of hyperglycemia (19.7% vs 7.0%; blood glucose > 180 mg/dL; p < 0.0001) and hypoglycemia (8.9% vs 2.5%; blood glucose < 70 mg/dL; p < 0.0001), higher glycemic variability (55.6 vs 28.8, average of patient SD of glucose; p < 0.0001), and increased mortality (13.8% vs 11.4%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with unknown diabetes represent a significant percentage of ICU admissions. Measurement of hemoglobin A1c at admission can prospectively identify a population that are not known to have diabetes but have significant challenges in glycemic control in the ICU.

Patient-care time allocation by nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the intensive care unit.

INTRODUCTION: Use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants ("affiliates") is increasing significantly in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite this, few data exist on how affiliates allocate their time in the ICU. The purpose of this study was to understand the allocation of affiliate time into patient-care and non-patient-care activity, further dividing the time devoted to patient care into billable service and equally important but nonbillable care. METHODS: We conducted a quasi experimental study in seven ICUs in an academic hospital and a hybrid academic/community hospital. After a period of self-reporting, a one-time monetary incentive of $2,500 was offered to 39 affiliates in each ICU in which every affiliate documented greater than 75% of their time devoted to patient care over a 6-month period in an effort to understand how affiliates allocated their time throughout a shift. Documentation included billable time (critical care, evaluation and management, procedures) and a new category ("zero charge time"), which facilitated record keeping of other patient-care activities. RESULTS: At baseline, no ICUs had documentation of 75% patient-care time by all of its affiliates. In the 6 months in which reporting was tied to a group incentive, six of seven ICUs had every affiliate document greater than 75% of their time. Individual time documentation increased from 53% to 84%. Zero-charge time accounted for an average of 21% of each shift. The most common reason was rounding, which accounted for nearly half of all zero-charge time. Sign out, chart review, and teaching were the next most common zero-charge activities. Documentation of time spent on billable activities also increased from 53% of an affiliate's shift to 63%. Time documentation was similar regardless of during which shift an affiliate worked. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately two thirds of an affiliate's shift is spent providing billable services to patients. Greater than 20% of each shift is spent providing equally important but not reimbursable patient care. Understanding how affiliates spend their time and what proportion of time is spent in billable activities can be used to plan the financial impact of staffing ICUs with affiliates.

The turn team: a novel strategy for reducing pressure ulcers in the surgical intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers cause significant morbidity and mortality in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). The purpose of this study was to determine if a dedicated team tasked with turning and repositioning all hemodynamically stable SICU patients could decrease the formation of pressure ulcers. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 507 patients in a 20-bed SICU in a university hospital were assessed for pressure ulcers using a point prevalence strategy, between December 2008 and September 2010, before and after implementation of a team tasked with turning and repositioning all hemodynamically stable patients every 2 hours around the clock. RESULTS: At baseline, when frequent turning was encouraged but not required, a total of 42 pressure ulcers were identified in 278 patients. After implementation of the turn team, a total of 12 pressure ulcers were identified in 229 patients (p < 0.0001). The preintervention group included 34 stage I and II ulcers and 8 higher stage ulcers. After implementation of the turn team, there were 7 stage I and II ulcers and 5 higher stage ulcers. The average Braden score was 16.5 in the preintervention group and 13.4 in the postintervention group (p = 0.04), suggesting that pressure ulcers were occurring in higher risk patients after implementation of the turn team. CONCLUSIONS: A team dedicated to turning SICU patients every 2 hours dramatically decreased the incidence of pressure ulcers. The majority of stage I and stage II ulcers appear to be preventable with an aggressive intervention aimed at pressure ulcer prevention.