A narrative review of the training structure, role, and safety profile of advanced critical care practitioners in adult intensive services in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced clinical practitioners are a growing part of the National Health Service workforce in the United Kingdom (UK). The concept stems from the progression of skills, knowledge, and experience of healthcare professionals (including nursing, physiotherapists, paramedics, and pharmacists) to a higher level of practice. The addition of advanced critical care practitioners (ACCPs) to the multidisciplinary team of the UK adult critical care is recent; they form part of the fabric of the advanced clinical practitioner workforce. This is a narrative review of the role of ACCPs, considering the evolution of the role, training, accreditation, and evidence supporting the safety profile in adult intensive care in the UK. METHOD: This is a narrative review. CONCLUSION: ACCPs have evolved from an ad hoc and local training structure, to a UK-wide competency standard and training developed within the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine. This formed in concert with the advanced clinical practitioner concept. As advanced practice is very much multiprofessional in the UK, a single regulator for multiple base professions is likely neither feasible nor realistic. Over the last 5 years, the UK picture of advanced practice has slowly standardised; an ACCP securely fits under the advanced clinical practitioner umbrella. The ACCP workforce has moved from a handful of early adopters, regional hubs, to a position across most critical care units now have or are developing a team of practitioners. The evidence base for the safety profile of ACCPs is evolving and shows parity in outcomes in the areas currently investigated. The ACCP role provides a vision of a multiprofessional workforce for the future of staffing of critical care services that is diverse and inclusive, not with the intention of competing with our medical colleagues.

Advanced airway management and drug-assisted intubation skills in an advanced critical care practitioner team.

INTRODUCTION: Airway management, including endotracheal intubation, is one of the cornerstones of care of critically ill patients. Internationally, health professionals from varying backgrounds deliver endotracheal intubation as part of their critical care role. This article considers the development of airway management skills within a single advanced critical care practitioner (ACCP) team and uses case series data to analyse the safety profile in performing this aspect of critical care. Skills were acquired during and after the ACCP training pathway. A combination of theoretical teaching, theatre experience, simulation and work-based practice was used. Case series data of all critical care intubations by ACCPs were collected. Audit results: Data collection identified 675 intubations carried out by ACCPs, 589 of those being supervised, non-cardiac arrest intubations requiring drugs. First pass success was achieved in 89.6% of cases. A second intubator was required in 4.3% of cases. Some form of complication was experienced by 42.3% of patients; however, the threshold for complications was set at a low level. CONCLUSIONS: This ACCP service developed a process to acquire advanced airway management skills including endotracheal intubation. Under medical supervision, ACCPs delivered advanced airway management achieving a first pass success rate of 89.6%, which compares favourably with both international and national success rates. Although complications were experienced in 48.3% of patients, when similar complication cut-offs are compared with published data, ACCPs also matched favourably.

Evaluation of the safety of inter-hospital transfers of critically ill patients led by advanced critical care practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: Ten thousand inter-hospital transfers of critically ill adults take place annually in the UK. Studies highlight deficiencies in experience and training of staff, equipment, stabilisation before departure, and logistical difficulties. This article is a quality improvement review of an advanced critical care practitioner (ACCP)-led inter-hospital transfer service. METHODS: The tool Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence was used as the format for the review, combined with clinical audit of advanced critical care practitioner-led transfers over a period of more than 3 years. RESULTS: The transfer service has operated for 8 years; ACCPs conducted 934 critical care transfers of mechanically ventilated patients, including 286 inter-hospital transfers, between January 2017 and September 2020. The acuity of transfer patients was high, 82.2% required support of more than one organ, 49% required more than 50% oxygen. Uneventful transfer occurred in 81.4% of cases; the most common patient-related complication being hypotension, logistical issues were responsible for half of the complications. CONCLUSION: This quality improvement project provides an example of safe and effective advanced practice in an area that is traditionally a medically led domain. ACCPs can provide an alternative process of care for critically ill adults who require external transfer, and a benchmark for audit and quality improvement.

BET 1: Does apnoeic oxygenation reduce the risk of desaturation in patients requiring endotracheal intubation?

A shortcut review of the literature was carried out to establish whether the use of apnoeic oxygenation technique during endotracheal intubation reduces the incidence of critical desaturation. Four trials were found to be directly relevant to the three-part question. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of these papers are tabulated. The clinical bottom line is that there is emerging evidence that the use of apnoeic oxygenation decreases the incidence of critical desaturation during endotracheal intubation. Due to the heterogeneity of trials, however, further well-constructed and emergency department (ED)-based studies are probably warranted before conclusion can be drawn for daily emergency medicine practice.

The provision of central venous access, transfer of critically ill patients and advanced airway management.: Are advanced critical care practitioners safe and effective?

Advanced critical care practitioners are a new and growing component of the critical care multidisciplinary team in the United Kingdom. This audit considers the safety profile of advanced critical care practitioners in the provision of central venous catheterisation and transfer of ventilated critical care patients without direct supervision and supervised drug assisted intubation of critically ill patients. The audit showed that advanced critical care practitioners can perform central venous cannulation, transfer of critically ill ventilated patients and intubation with parity to published UK literature.

Insertion rates and complications of central lines in the UK population: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters are inserted ubiquitously in critical care and have roles in drug administration, fluid management and renal replacement therapy. They are also associated with numerous complications. The true number of central venous catheters inserted per year and the proportion of them associated with complications are unknown in the UK. METHODS: We performed a prospective audit at five hospitals, as a feasibility pilot for a larger, nationwide audit. Using a novel secure online data collection platform, developed earlier and adapted for this project, all central venous catheters inserted for patients admitted to the Intensive Care Units were documented at five pilot sites across the UK. RESULTS: A total of 117 data collection forms were submitted. Users found the electronic data collection system easy to use. All data fields were ready for analysis immediately after data input. Out of the 117 central venous catheters, 17 were haemodialysis catheters and five pulmonary artery introducers. Experienced practitioners (at least three years' experience) inserted 85% of the central venous catheters. The site of insertion was the internal jugular vein for 80%, femoral for 12% and subclavian for 8% of central venous catheters. Most central venous catheters were inserted in ICU (49%) or theatres (42%). Ultrasound was used for 109 (93%) of central venous catheter insertions and its use was not associated with fewer complications. In 15 cases venopuncture was attempted more than once (all with ultrasound) and this was associated with significantly increased risk of complications. There were eight immediate complications (6.8%): five related to venopuncture and inability to pass a guidewire, two carotid artery punctures and one associated with significant arrhythmia. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the ease and feasibility of collecting detailed descriptive data on central line insertion and its immediate complications in the UK over two weeks. In our proposed nationwide audit, organisation-level data on local policies and standard operating procedures is required to complete the picture on this important aspect of intensive care practice.