Best Practices for Conducting Interprofessional Team Rounds to Facilitate Performance of the ICU Liberation (ABCDEF) Bundle.

OBJECTIVES: Daily ICU interprofessional team rounds, which incorporate the ICU Liberation ("A" for Assessment, Prevention, and Manage Pain; "B" for Both Spontaneous Awakening Trials and Spontaneous Breathing Trials; "C" for Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; "D" for Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; "E" for Early Mobility and Exercise; "F" for Family Engagement and Empowerment [ABCDEF]) Bundle, support both the care coordination and regular provider communication necessary for Bundle execution. This article describes evidence-based practices for conducting effective interprofessional team rounds in the ICU to improve Bundle performance. DESIGN: Best practice synthesis. METHODS: The authors, each extensively involved in the Society of Critical Care Medicine's ICU Liberation Campaign, reviewed the pertinent literature to identify how ICU interprofessional team rounds can be optimized to increase ICU Liberation adherence. RESULTS: Daily ICU interprofessional team rounds that foster ICU Liberation Bundle use support both care coordination and regular provider communication within and between teams. Evidence-based best practices for conducting effective interprofessional team rounds in the ICU include the optimal structure for ICU interprofessional team rounds; the importance of conducting rounds at patients' bedside; essential participants in rounds; the inclusion of ICU patients and their families in rounds-based discussions; and incorporation of the Bundle into the Electronic Health Record. Interprofessional team rounds in the ICU ideally employ communication strategies to foster inclusive and supportive behaviors consistent with interprofessional collaboration in the ICU. Patient care discussions during interprofessional team rounds benefit from being patient-centered and goal-oriented. Documentation of ICU Liberation Bundle elements in the Electronic Health Record may help facilitate team communication and decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting high-quality interprofessional team rounds in the ICU is a key strategy to support ICU Liberation Bundle use.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Etiology, Pathogenesis, and Summary on Management.

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has multiple causes and is characterized by acute lung inflammation and increased pulmonary vascular permeability, leading to hypoxemic respiratory failure and bilateral pulmonary radiographic opacities. The acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, and effective treatment strategies are limited. This review presents the current state of the literature regarding the etiology, pathogenesis, and management strategies for ARDS.

Caring for Critically Ill Patients with the ABCDEF Bundle: Results of the ICU Liberation Collaborative in Over 15,000 Adults.

OBJECTIVE: Decades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative. SETTING: 68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period. PATIENTS: 15,226 adults with at least one ICU day. INTERVENTIONS: We defined ABCDEF bundle performance (our main exposure) in two ways: 1) complete performance (patient received every eligible bundle element on any given day) and 2) proportional performance (percentage of eligible bundle elements performed on any given day). We explored the association between complete and proportional ABCDEF bundle performance and three sets of outcomes: patient-related (mortality, ICU and hospital discharge), symptom-related (mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium, pain, restraint use), and system-related (ICU readmission, discharge destination). All models were adjusted for a minimum of 18 a priori determined potential confounders. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Complete ABCDEF bundle performance was associated with lower likelihood of seven outcomes: hospital death within 7 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.17-0.62), next-day mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.28; CI, 0.22-0.36), coma (AOR, 0.35; CI, 0.22-0.56), delirium (AOR, 0.60; CI, 0.49-0.72), physical restraint use (AOR, 0.37; CI, 0.30-0.46), ICU readmission (AOR, 0.54; CI, 0.37-0.79), and discharge to a facility other than home (AOR, 0.64; CI, 0.51-0.80). There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ABCDEF bundle performance showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes including survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma, delirium, restraint-free care, ICU readmissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition.

Nonpharmacologic and Medication Minimization Strategies for the Prevention and Treatment of ICU Delirium: A Narrative Review.

Delirium is a multifactorial entity, and its understanding continues to evolve. Delirium has been associated with increased morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and cost for hospitalized patients, especially for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Recent literature on delirium focuses on specific pharmacologic risk factors and pharmacologic interventions to minimize course and severity of delirium. While medication management clearly plays a role in delirium management, there are a variety of nonpharmacologic interventions, pharmacologic minimization strategies, and protocols that have been recently described. A PubMed search was performed to review the evidence for nonpharmacologic management, pharmacologic minimization strategies, and prevention of delirium for patients in the ICU. Recent approaches were condensed into 10 actionable steps to manage delirium and minimize medications for ICU patients and are presented in this review.

Improving Health Care for Critically Ill Patients Using an Evidence-Based Collaborative Approach to ABCDEF Bundle Dissemination and Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) often experience pain, oversedation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, delirium, and weakness. These conditions are important in that they often lead to protracted physical, neurocognitive, and mental health sequelae now termed postintensive care syndrome. Changing current ICU practice will not only require the adoption of evidence-based interventions but the development of effective and reliable teams to support these new practices. OBJECTIVES: To build on the success of bundled care and bridge an ongoing evidence-practice gap, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) recently launched the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative. The Collaborative aimed to foster the bedside application of the SCCM's Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this paper is to describe the history of the Collaborative, the evidence-based implementation strategies used to foster change and teamwork, and the performance and outcome metrics used to monitor progress. METHODS: Collaborative participants were required to attend four in-person meetings, monthly colearning calls, database training sessions, an e-Community listserv, and select in-person site visits. Teams submitted patient-level data and completed pre- and postimplementation questionnaires focused on the assessment of teamwork and collaboration, work environment, and overall ICU care. Faculty shared the evidence used to derive each bundle element as well as team-based implementation strategies for improvement and sustainment. RESULTS: Retention in the Collaborative was high, with 67 of 69 adult and eight of nine pediatric ICUs fully completing the program. Baseline and prospective data were collected on over 17,000 critically ill patients. A variety of evidence-based professional behavioral change interventions and novel implementation techniques were utilized and shared among Collaborative members. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Hospitals and health systems can use the Collaborative structure, strategies, and tools described in this paper to help successfully implement the ABCDEF bundle in their ICUs.

Viral Respiratory Infections of Adults in the Intensive Care Unit.

Viral lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are an underappreciated cause of critical illness in adults. Recent advances in viral detection techniques over the past decade have demonstrated viral LRTIs are associated with rates of morbidity, mortality, and health care utilization comparable to those of seen with bacterial community acquired and nosocomial pneumonias. In this review, we describe the relationship between viral LRTIs and critical illness, as well as discuss relevant clinical features and management strategies for the more prevalent respiratory viral pathogens.

Protocols and Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical protocols may decrease unnecessary variation in care and improve compliance with desirable therapies. We evaluated whether highly protocolized ICUs have superior patient outcomes compared with less highly protocolized ICUs. DESIGN: Observational study in which participating ICUs completed a general assessment and enrolled new patients 1 day each week. PATIENTS: A total of 6,179 critically ill patients. SETTING: Fifty-nine ICUs in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary exposure was the number of ICU protocols; the primary outcome was hospital mortality. A total of 5,809 participants were followed prospectively, and 5,454 patients in 57 ICUs had complete outcome data. The median number of protocols per ICU was 19 (interquartile range, 15-21.5). In single-variable analyses, there were no differences in ICU and hospital mortality, length of stay, use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or continuous sedation among individuals in ICUs with a high versus low number of protocols. The lack of association was confirmed in adjusted multivariable analysis (p = 0.70). Protocol compliance with two ventilator management protocols was moderate and did not differ between ICUs with high versus low numbers of protocols for lung protective ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (47% vs 52%; p = 0.28) and for spontaneous breathing trials (55% vs 51%; p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical protocols are highly prevalent in U.S. ICUs. The presence of a greater number of protocols was not associated with protocol compliance or patient mortality.

Improving Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated Adult ICU Patients Following Implementation of the ICU Liberation (ABCDEF) Bundle Across a Large Healthcare System.

OBJECTIVES: To measure how the ICU Liberation Bundle (aka ABCDEF Bundle or the Bundle) affected clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated (MV) adult ICU patients, as well as bundle sustainability and spread across a healthcare system. DESIGN: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, cohort observational study to measure bundle performance versus patient outcomes and sustainability in 11 adult ICUs at six community hospitals. We then prospectively measured bundle spread and performance across the other 28 hospitals of the healthcare system. SETTING: A large community-based healthcare system. PATIENTS: In 11 study ICUs, we enrolled 1,914 MV patients (baseline n = 925, bundle performance/outcomes n = 989), 3,019 non-MV patients (baseline n = 1,323, bundle performance/outcomes n = 1,696), and 2,332 MV patients (bundle sustainability). We enrolled 9,717 MV ICU patients in the other 28 hospitals to assess bundle spread. INTERVENTIONS: We used evidence-based strategies to implement the bundle in all 34 hospitals. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared outcomes for the 12-month baseline and bundle performance periods. Bundle implementation reduced ICU length of stay (LOS) by 0.5 days (p = 0.02), MV duration by 0.6 days (p = 0.01), and ICU LOS greater than or equal to 7 days by 18.1% (p < 0.01). Performance period bundle compliance was compared with the preceding 3-month baseline compliance period. Compliance with pain management and spontaneous awakening trial (SAT) and spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) remained high, and reintubation rates remained low. Sedation assessments increased (p < 0.01) and benzodiazepine sedation use decreased (p < 0.01). Delirium assessments increased (p = 0.02) and delirium prevalence decreased (p = 0.02). Patient mobilization and ICU family engagement did not significantly improve. Bundle element sustainability varied. SAT/SBT compliance dropped by nearly half, benzodiazepine use remained low, sedation and delirium monitoring and management remained high, and patient mobility and family engagement remained low. Bundle compliance in ICUs across the healthcare system exceeded that of study ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: The ICU Liberation Bundle improves outcomes in MV adult ICU patients. Evidence-based implementation strategies improve bundle performance, spread, and sustainability across large healthcare systems.

The pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle: synergistic benefits of implementing the 2013 Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines in an integrated and interdisciplinary fashion.

OBJECTIVE: In 2013, the American College of Critical Care Medicine published a revised version of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. The guidelines included an ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle designed to facilitate implementation of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. DESIGN: Review article. SETTING: Multispecialty critical care units. PATIENTS: Adult ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: This article describes: 1) the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle in more detail, linking pain, sedation/agitation, and delirium management in an integrated and interdisciplinary fashion; 2) pain, agitation, and delirium implementation strategies; and 3) the potential synergistic benefits of linking pain, agitation, and delirium management strategies to other evidence-based ICU practices, including spontaneous breathing trials, ICU early mobility programs, and ICU sleep hygiene programs, in order to improve ICU patient outcomes and to reduce costs of care. RESULTS: Linking the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium management strategies with spontaneous awakening trials, spontaneous breathing trials, and early mobility and sleep hygiene programs is associated with significant improvements in ICU patient outcomes and reductions in their costs of care. CONCLUSIONS: The 2013 ICU pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines provide critical care providers with an evidence-based, integrated, and interdisciplinary approach to managing pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium. The ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle provides a framework for facilitating implementation of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. Widespread implementation of the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle is likely to result in large-scale improvements in ICU patient outcomes and significant reductions in costs.

The methodological approach used to develop the 2013 Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Clinical Practice Guidelines for adult ICU patients.

OBJECTIVE: In 2006, the American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-member task force to revise the 2002 guidelines for sedation and analgesia in critically ill adults. This article describes the methodological approach used to develop the American College of Critical Care Medicine's 2013 ICU Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Clinical Practice Guidelines. DESIGN: Review article. SETTING: Multispecialty critical care units. PATIENTS: Adult ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: The task force was divided into four subcommittees, focusing on pain, sedation, delirium, and related outcomes. Unique aspects of this approach included the use of: 1) the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method to evaluate the literature; 2) a librarian to conduct literature searches and to create and maintain the pain, agitation, and delirium database; 3) creation of a single web-based database; 4) rigorous psychometric analyses of pain, sedation, and delirium assessment tools; 5) the use of anonymous electronic polling; and 6) creation of an ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle. RESULTS: The pain, agitation, and delirium database includes over 19,000 references. With the help of psychometric experts, members developed a scoring system and analyzed the psychometric properties of 6 behavioral pain scales, 10 sedation/agitation scales, and 5 delirium monitoring tools. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the overall impact of benzodiazepine versus nonbenzodiazepine sedation on ICU outcomes. The pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines include 54 evidence-based statements and recommendations. The quality of evidence and strength for each statement and recommendation was ranked. In the absence of sufficient evidence or group consensus, no recommendations were made. An ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle was created to facilitate adoption of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. It focuses on taking an integrated approach to assessing, treating, and preventing pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium in critically ill patients, and it links pain, agitation, and delirium management to spontaneous awakening trials, spontaneous breathing trials, and ICU early mobility and sleep hygiene programs in order to achieve synergistic benefits to ICU patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The 2013 ICU pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines provide critical care providers with an evidence-based, integrated, and interdisciplinary approach to managing pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium. The methodological approach used to develop the guidelines ensures that they are rigorous, evidence-based, and transparent. Implementation of the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle is expected to have a significant beneficial impact on ICU outcomes and costs.

Psychometric analysis of subjective sedation scales in critically ill adults.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and analyze the development and psychometric properties of subjective sedation scales developed for critically ill adult patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. STUDY SELECTION: English-only publications through December 2012 with at least 30 patients older than 18 years, which included the key words of adult, critically ill, subjective sedation scale, sedation scale, validity, and reliability. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers evaluated the psychometric properties using a standardized sedation scale psychometric scoring system. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among the 19,000+ citations extracted for the 2013 Society of Critical Care Medicine's Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation and Delirium and from December 2010 to 2012, 36 articles were identified compassing 11 sedation scales. The scale development process, psychometric properties, feasibility, and implementation of sedation scales were analyzed using a 0-20 scoring system. Two scales demonstrated scores indicating "very good" published psychometric properties: Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (19.5) and the Sedation-Agitation Scale (19). Scores with "moderate" properties include the Vancouver Interaction and Calmness Scale (14.3), Adaptation to the Intensive Care Environment (13.7), Ramsay Sedation Scale (13.2), Minnesota Sedation Assessment Tool (13), and the Nursing Instrument for the Communication of Sedation (12.8). Scales with "low" properties included the Motor Activity Assessment Scale (11.5) and the Sedation Intensive Care Score (10.5). The New Sheffield Sedation Scale (8.5) and the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (3.7) demonstrated "very low" published properties. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current literature, and using a predetermined psychometric scoring system, the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and the Sedation-Agitation Scale are the most valid and reliable subjective sedation scales for use in critically ill adult patients.

Contextual issues influencing implementation and outcomes associated with an integrated approach to managing pain, agitation, and delirium in adult ICUs.

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study was designed to identify which contextual factors facilitate/hinder the implementation of the awakening, breathing, coordination, delirium, and early mobility (ABCDE) bundle for guidance in future studies. DESIGN: The sources of data for this study included document review, planned site visits (including interviews and observations), a brief online contextual factors survey, and self-reported process and outcome data. PATIENTS: All patients in the four participating SF Bay Area ICUs were eligible to be included in this pilot study. SETTING: This study took place in the four San Francisco Bay Area ICUs participating in the ICU Clinical Impact Interest Group, funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation from January 2012 through June 2013. INTERVENTIONS: This was a pilot evaluation study to identify factors that facilitated/hindered the implementation of the ABCDE bundle, interventions designed to decrease the prevalence of ICU-acquired delirium and muscle weakness. The ABCDE bundle consists of spontaneous awakening trials, spontaneous breathing trials, coordination of awakening and breathing trials, choice of sedation, delirium screening and treatment, and early progressive mobility. MEASUREMENTS: Process data related to bundle element compliance were collected at baseline and monthly during the intervention period. Outcome data (average ICU length of stay and average days on mechanical ventilation) were collected at baseline and quarterly during the intervention period. Hospital-specific results of the online contextual factors survey and information gathered through interviews and observations during site visits also contributed to the analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Factors related to structural characteristics of the ICU, an organizational-wide patient safety culture, an ICU culture of quality improvement, implementation planning, training/support, and prompts/documentation are believed to have facilitated the rate and success of ABCDE bundle implementation. Excessive turnover (both in project and ICU leadership), staff morale issues, lack of respect among disciplines, knowledge deficits, and excessive use of registry staff are believed to have hindered implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of the elements of the ABCDE bundle can result in significant improvements in ICU patient care. The results of this study highlight specific structural and cultural elements of ICUs and hospitals that can positively and negatively influence the implementation of complex care bundles like the ABCDE bundle. Further research is needed to assess the influence of these contextual factors across a broader variety of ICUs and hospitals.

Benzodiazepine versus nonbenzodiazepine-based sedation for mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Use of dexmedetomidine or propofol rather than a benzodiazepine sedation strategy may improve ICU outcomes. We reviewed randomized trials comparing a benzodiazepine and nonbenzodiazepine regimen in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients to determine if differences exist between these sedation strategies with respect to ICU length of stay, time on the ventilator, delirium prevalence, and short-term mortality. METHODS: We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, the Cochrane databases, and the American College of Critical Care Medicine's Pain, Agitation, Delirium Management Guidelines' literature database from 1996 to 2013. Citations were screened for randomized trials that enrolled critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults comparing an IV benzodiazepine-based to a nonbenzodiazepine-based sedative regimen and reported duration of ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, delirium prevalence, and/or short-term mortality. Trial characteristics and results were abstracted in duplicate and independently, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for quality assessment. We performed random effects model meta-analyses where possible. RESULTS: We included six trials enrolling 1,235 patients: midazolam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 3), lorazepam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 1), midazolam versus propofol (n = 1), and lorazepam versus propofol (n = 1). Compared to a benzodiazepine sedative strategy, a nonbenzodiazepine sedative strategy was associated with a shorter ICU length of stay (n = 6 studies; difference = 1.62 d; 95% CI, 0.68-2.55; I = 0%; p = 0.0007) and duration of mechanical ventilation (n = 4 studies; difference = 1.9 d; 95% CI, 1.70-2.09; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001) but a similar prevalence of delirium (n = 2; risk ratio = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.61-1.11; I2 = 84%; p = 0.19) and short-term mortality rate (n = 4; risk ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.76-1.27; I2 = 30%; p = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Current controlled data suggest that use of a dexmedetomidine- or propofol-based sedation regimen rather than a benzodiazepine-based sedation regimen in critically ill adults may reduce ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation. Larger controlled studies are needed to further define the impact of nonbenzodiazepine sedative regimens on delirium and short-term mortality.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002. METHODS: The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. CONCLUSION: These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

A validated approach to evaluating psychometric properties of pain assessment tools for use in nonverbal critically ill adults.

A valid pain assessment is the foundation of adequate pain management. Pain assessment can be challenging, especially in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients who are unable to self-report. In such situations, relying on observational assessment tools is an alternative strategy. This review describes and analyzes the development and psychometric properties of pain assessment tools developed for use with nonverbal critically ill adults. A total of 32 relevant papers that described the psychometric properties of eight pain assessment tools were included. The scale development process, psychometric properties (i.e., reliability and validity), and feasibility of pain assessment tools were analyzed using a 0 to 20 scoring system. Each pain assessment tool was scored independently by two reviewers. Of the eight behavioral pain scales developed for use in adult ICU patients, the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) are considered to be the most valid and reliable for this purpose, according to the available evidence. Behavioral pain scales may be viable alternatives to assessing pain in ICU patients who are unable to self-report, but only valid, reliable, and feasible scales should be used for this purpose.

Reflecting on use of the GRADE process for development of the 2013 PAD Guidelines.

This article evaluates the methodology used to develop the updated American College of Critical Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine Pain Agitation and Delirium (PAD) Guidelines in terms of (1) evaluating the role of a medical librarian in the guidelines development process; (2) summarizing the impressions of the guideline task force members on the use of Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and anonymous voting to develop guideline questions, statements, and recommendations; and (3) analyzing the impact of this approach to developing clinical practice guidelines on interrater reliability in evaluating evidence, statements, and recommendations.

Lessons Learned From a Systematic, Hospital-Wide Implementation of the ABCDEF Bundle: A Survey Evaluation.

Objective: We recently reported the first part of a study testing the impact of data literacy training on "assessing pain, spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, choice of analgesia and sedation, delirium monitoring/management, early exercise/mobility, and family and patient empowerment" [ABCDEF [A-F]) compliance. The purpose of the current study, part 2, was to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation approach by surveying clinical staff to examine staff knowledge, skill, motivation, and organizational resources. DESIGN: The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis framework was used to study knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences. Assumed influences identified in the literature were used to design the A-F bundle implementation strategies. The influences were validated against a survey distributed to the ICU interprofessional team. SETTING: Single-center study was conducted in eight adult ICUs in a quaternary academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Interprofessional ICU clinical team. INTERVENTIONS: A quantitative survey was sent to 386 participants to evaluate the implementation design postimplementation. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to understand the relationship between the KMO influences and the questions posed to validate the influence. Descriptive statistics were used to identify strengths needed to sustain performance and weaknesses that required improvement to increase A-F bundle adherence. MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS: The survey received an 83% response rate. The exploratory factor analysis confirmed that 38 of 42 questions had a strong relationship to the KMO influences, validating the survey's utility in evaluating the effectiveness of implementation design. A total of 12 KMO influences were identified, 8 were categorized as a strength and 4 as a weakness of the implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used an evidence-based gap analysis framework to demonstrate key implementation approaches needed to increase A-F bundle compliance. The following drivers were recommended as essential methods required for successful protocol implementation: data literacy training and performance monitoring, organizational support, value proposition, multidisciplinary collaboration, and interprofessional teamwork activities. We believe the learning generated in this two-part study is applicable to implementation design beyond the A-F bundle.

Improving ABCDEF Bundle Compliance and Clinical Outcomes in the ICU: Randomized Control Trial to Assess the Impact of Performance Measurement, Feedback, and Data Literacy Training.

OBJECTIVES: Describe the effects of data literacy training and continuous performance reports on ICU staff compliance with the 6-element ICU quality bundle approach known as the ABCDEF (A-F) bundle and patient outcomes. DESIGN: Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial conducted during an institutional A-F bundle implementation program. SETTING: Single-center study conducted in eight adult ICUs. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted for at least 24 hours, not undergoing active withdrawal of life support or palliative care. INTERVENTIONS: Four ICUs in the intervention group received bundle-related staff education, data literacy training, and weekly bundle performance reports during the 12-month study period. The four ICUs in the nonintervention group received none of these interventions. Bundle compliance and patient outcomes were tracked, including ICU and hospital mortality, transfer and discharge, discharge disposition, mechanical ventilation, and ICU delirium. MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS: In the intervention group, staff education alone increased bundle compliance from 9% to 16% (p < 0.0001); data literacy training further increased compliance from 16% to 21% (p = 0.03). This improvement was sustained throughout the study period including the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and was greater than improvement in the nonintervention group (p < 0.001). Full A-F bundle compliance was associated with a lower likelihood of next-day ICU and hospital mortality, discharge to a facility other than home, and was associated with a higher likelihood of next-day extubation in patients. Next-day ICU and hospital discharge likelihood decreased, and delirium frequency was not affected. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study demonstrating that the combination of staff education, data literacy training, and access to performance data improves A-F bundle compliance, sustains performance, and improves ICU patient outcomes (ICU and hospital mortality, mechanical ventilation duration, and home discharge rates). In contrast to previous studies, increased bundle compliance did not hasten ICU or hospital discharges or reduce delirium frequency in patients.