Development, feasibility testing, and preliminary evaluation of the Communication with an Artificial airway Tool (CAT): Results of the Crit-CAT pilot study.

BACKGROUND: A purpose-built outcome measure for assessing communication effectiveness in patients with an artificial airway is needed. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop the Communication with an Artificial airway Tool (CAT) and to test the feasibility and to preliminary evaluate the clinical metrics of the tool. METHODS: Eligible patients with an artificial airway in the Intensive Care Unit were enrolled in the pilot study (Crit-CAT). The CAT was administered at least twice before and after the communication intervention. Item correlation analysis was performed. Participant and family member acceptability ratings and feedback were solicited. A qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with a mean age of 53 years (standard deviation [SD]: 19.26) were included. The clinician-reported scale was administered on 50 attempts (100%) with a mean completion time of 4.5 (SD: 0.77) minutes. The patient-reported scale was administered on 46 out of 49 attempts (94%) and took a mean of 1.5 (SD: 0.39) minutes to complete. The CAT was feasible for use in the Intensive Care Unit, with patients with either an endotracheal or tracheostomy tube, whilst receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or not, and while using either verbal or nonverbal modes of communication. Preliminary establishment of responsiveness, validity, and reliability was made. The tool was acceptable to participants and their family members. CONCLUSION: The clinician-reported and patient-reported components of the study were feasible for use. The CAT has the potential to enable quantifiable comparison of communication interventions for patients with an artificial airway. Future research is required to determine external validity and reliability.

Implementation of an evidence-based accidental tracheostomy dislodgement bundle in a community hospital critical care unit.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy dislodgment can lead to catastrophic neurological injury or death. A fresh tracheostomy amplifies the risk of such events, where an immature tract predisposes to false passage. Unfortunately, few resources exist to prepare healthcare professionals to manage this airway emergency. AIM: To create and implement an accidental tracheostomy dislodgement (ATD) bundle to improve knowledge and comfort when responding to ATD. MATERIALS & METHODS: A multidisciplinary team with expertise in tracheostomy developed a 3-part ATD bundle including (1) Tracheostomy Dislodgement Algorithm, (2) Head of Bed Tracheostomy Communication Tool and (3) Emergency Tracheostomy Kit. The team tested the bundle during the COVID-19 pandemic in a community hospital critical care unit with the engagement of nurses and Respiratory Care Practitioners. Baseline and post-implementation knowledge and comfort levels were measured using Dorton's Tracheotomy Education Self-Assessment Questionnaire, and adherence to protocol was assessed. Reporting follows the revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE). RESULTS: Twenty-four participants completed pre-test and post-test questionnaires. The median knowledge score on the Likert scale increased from 4.0 (IQR = 1.0) pre-test to 5.0 (IQR = 1.0) post-test. The median comfort level score increased from 38.0 (IQR = 7.0) pre-test to 40.0 (IQR = 5.0) post-test). In patient rooms, adherence was 100% for the Head of Bed Tracheostomy Communication Tool and Emergency Tracheostomy Kit. The adherence rate for using the Dislodgement Algorithm was 55% in ICU and 40% in SCU. DISCUSSION: This study addresses the void of tracheostomy research conducted in local community hospitals. The improvement in knowledge and comfort in managing ATD is reassuring, given the knowledge gap among practitioners demonstrated in prior literature. The ATD bundle assessed in this study represents a streamlined approach for bedside clinicians - definitive management of ATD should adhere to comprehensive multidisciplinary guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: ATD bundle implementation increased knowledge and comfort levels with managing ATD. Further studies must assess whether ATD bundles and other standardised approaches to airway emergencies reduce adverse events. Relevance to Clinical Practice A streamlined intervention bundle employed at the unit level can significantly improve knowledge and comfort in managing ATD, which may reduce morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients with tracheostomy.

Amplifying patient voices amid pandemic: Perspectives on tracheostomy care, communication, and connection.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate perspectives of patients, family members, caregivers (PFC), and healthcare professionals (HCP) on tracheostomy care during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The cross-sectional survey investigating barriers and facilitators to tracheostomy care was collaboratively developed by patients, family members, nurses, speech-language pathologists, respiratory care practitioners, physicians, and surgeons. The survey was distributed to the Global Tracheostomy Collaborative's learning community, and responses were analyzed. RESULTS: Survey respondents (n = 191) from 17 countries included individuals with a tracheostomy (85 [45 %]), families/caregivers (43 [22 %]), and diverse HCP (63 [33.0 %]). Overall, 94 % of respondents reported concern that patients with tracheostomy were at increased risk of critical illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19; 93 % reported fear or anxiety. With respect to prioritization of care, 38 % of PFC versus 16 % of HCP reported concern that patients with tracheostomies might not be valued or prioritized (p = 0.002). Respondents also differed in fear of contracting COVID-19 (69 % PFC vs. 49 % HCP group, p = 0.009); concern for hospitalization (55.5 % PFC vs. 27 % HCP, p < 0.001); access to medical personnel (34 % PFC vs. 14 % HCP, p = 0.005); and concern about canceled appointments (62 % PFC vs. 41 % HCP, p = 0.01). Respondents from both groups reported severe stress and fatigue, sleep deprivation, lack of breaks, and lack of support (70 % PFC vs. 65 % HCP, p = 0.54). Virtual telecare seldom met perceived needs. CONCLUSION: PFC with a tracheostomy perceived most risks more acutely than HCP in this global sample. Broad stakeholder engagement is necessary to achieve creative, patient-driven solutions to maintain connection, communication, and access for patients with a tracheostomy.

Managing intensive care admissions when there are not enough beds during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

The surge in cases of severe COVID-19 has resulted in clinicians triaging intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in places where demand has exceeded capacity. In order to assist difficult triage decisions, clinicians require clear guidelines on how to prioritise patients. Existing guidelines show significant variability in their development, interpretation, implementation and an urgent need for a robust synthesis of published guidance. To understand how to manage which patients are admitted to ICU, and receive mechanical ventilatory support, during periods of high demand during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review was performed. Databases of indexed literature (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Global Health) and grey literature (Google.com and MedRxiv), published from 1 January until 2 April 2020, were searched. Search terms included synonyms of COVID-19, ICU, ventilation, and triage. Only formal written guidelines were included. There were no exclusion criteria based on geographical location or publication language. Quality appraisal of the guidelines was performed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument Recommendation EXcellence (AGREE REX) appraisal tools, and key themes related to triage were extracted using narrative synthesis. Of 1902 unique records identified, nine relevant guidelines were included. Six guidelines were national or transnational level guidance (UK, Switzerland, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand, Italy, and Sri Lanka), with one state level (Kansas, USA), one international (Extracorporeal Life Support Organization) and one specific to military hospitals (Department of Defense, USA). The guidelines covered several broad themes: use of ethical frameworks, criteria for ICU admission and discharge, adaptation of criteria as demand changes, equality across health conditions and healthcare systems, decision-making processes, communication of decisions, and guideline development processes. We have synthesised the current guidelines and identified the different approaches taken globally to manage the triage of intensive care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is limited consensus on how to allocate the finite resource of ICU beds and ventilators, and a lack of high-quality evidence and guidelines on resource allocation during the pandemic. We have developed a set of factors to consider when developing guidelines for managing intensive care admissions, and outlined implications for clinical leads and local implementation.

Tracheostomy for COVID-19: evolving best practice.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2021. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2021 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 .

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Improving tracheostomy care in the United Kingdom: results of a guided quality improvement programme in 20 diverse hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Inconsistent and poorly coordinated systems of tracheostomy care commonly result in frustrations, delays, and harm. Quality improvement strategies described by exemplar hospitals of the Global Tracheostomy Collaborative have potential to mitigate such problems. This 3 yr guided implementation programme investigated interventions designed to improve the quality and safety of tracheostomy care. METHODS: The programme management team guided the implementation of 18 interventions over three phases (baseline/implementation/evaluation). Mixed-methods interviews, focus groups, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaires defined outcome measures, with patient-level databases tracking and benchmarking process metrics. Appreciative inquiry, interviews, and Normalisation Measure Development questionnaires explored change barriers and enablers. RESULTS: All sites implemented at least 16/18 interventions, with the magnitude of some improvements linked to staff engagement (1536 questionnaires from 1019 staff), and 2405 admissions (1868 ICU/high-dependency unit; 7.3% children) were prospectively captured. Median stay was 50 hospital days, 23 ICU days, and 28 tracheostomy days. Incident severity score reduced significantly (n=606; P<0.01). There were significant reductions in ICU (-;0.25 days month-1), ventilator (-;0.11 days month-1), tracheostomy (-;0.35 days month-1), and hospital (-;0.78 days month-1) days (all P<0.01). Time to first vocalisation and first oral intake both decreased by 7 days (n=733; P<0.01). Anxiety decreased by 44% (from 35.9% to 20.0%), and depression decreased by 55% (from 38.7% to 18.3%) (n=385; both P<0.01). Independent economic analysis demonstrated £33 251 savings per patient, with projected annual UK National Health Service savings of £275 million. CONCLUSIONS: This guided improvement programme for tracheostomy patients significantly improved the quality and safety of care, contributing rich qualitative improvement data. Patient-centred outcomes were improved along with significant efficiency and cost savings across diverse UK hospitals. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRAS-ID-206955; REC-Ref-16/LO/1196; NIHR Portfolio CPMS ID 31544.

Global Tracheostomy Collaborative: data-driven improvements in patient safety through multidisciplinary teamwork, standardisation, education, and patient partnership.

There is growing recognition of the need for a coordinated, systematic approach to caring for patients with a tracheostomy. Tracheostomy-related adverse events remain a pervasive global problem, accounting for half of all airway-related deaths and hypoxic brain damage in critical care units. The Global Tracheostomy Collaborative (GTC) was formed in 2012 to improve patient safety and quality of care, emphasising knowledge, skills, teamwork, and patient-centred approaches. Inspired by quality improvement leads in Australia, the UK, and the USA, the GTC implements and disseminates best practices across hospitals and healthcare trusts. Its database collects patient-level information on quality, safety, and organisational efficiencies. The GTC provides an organising structure for quality improvement efforts, promoting safety of paediatric and adult patients. Successful implementation requires instituting key drivers for change that include effective training for health professionals; multidisciplinary team collaboration; engagement and involvement of patients, their families, and carers; and data collection that allows tracking of outcomes. We report the history of the collaborative, its database infrastructure and analytics, and patient outcomes from more than 6500 patients globally. We characterise this patient population for the first time at such scale, reporting predictors of adverse events, mortality, and length of stay indexed to patient characteristics, co-morbidities, risk factors, and context. In one example, the database allowed identification of a previously unrecognised association between bleeding and mortality, reflecting ability to uncover latent risks and promote safety. The GTC provides the foundation for future risk-adjusted benchmarking and a learning community that drives ongoing quality improvement efforts worldwide.

Increasing the precision of simulated percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy-a pilot prototype device development study.

Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) is a bedside medical procedure which sites a new tracheostomy tube in the front of the neck. The critical first step is accurate placement of a needle through the neck tissues into the trachea. Misplacement occurs in around 5% of insertions, causing morbidity, mortality, and delays to recovery. We aimed to develop and evaluate a prototype medical device to improve precision of initial PDT-needle insertion. The Guidance for Tracheostomy (GiFT) system communicates the relative locations of intra-tracheal target sensor and PDT-needle sensor to the operator. In simulated "difficult neck" models, GiFT significantly improved accuracy (mean difference 10.0 mm, ANOVA p < 0.001) with ten untrained laboratory-based participants and ten experienced medical participants. GiFT resulted in slower time-to-target (mean difference 56.1 s, p < 0.001) than unguided attempts, considered clinically insignificant. Our proof-of-concept study highlights GiFT's potential to significantly improve PDT accuracy, reduce procedural complications and offer bedside PDT to more patients.