British Association of Critical Care Nurses: Evidence-based consensus paper for oral care within adult critical care units.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are critically ill are at increased risk of hospital acquired pneumonia and ventilator associated pneumonia. Effective evidence based oral care may reduce the incidence of such iatrogenic infection. AIM: To provide an evidence-based British Association of Critical Care Nurses endorsed consensus paper for best practice relating to implementing oral care, with the intention of promoting patient comfort and reducing hospital acquired pneumonia and ventilator associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. DESIGN: A nominal group technique was adopted. A consensus committee of adult critical care nursing experts from the United Kingdom met in 2018 to evaluate and review the literature relating to oral care, its application in reducing pneumonia in critically ill adults and to make recommendations for practice. An elected national board member for the British Association of Critical Care Nurses chaired the round table discussion. METHODS: The committee focused on 5 aspects of oral care practice relating to critically ill adult patients. The evidence was evaluated for each practice within the context of reducing pneumonia in the mechanically ventilated patient or pneumonia in the non-ventilated patient. The five practices included the frequency for oral care; tools for oral care; oral care technique; solutions used and oral care in the non-ventilated patient who is critically ill and is at risk of aspiration. The group searched the best available evidence and evaluated this using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong, moderate, weak, or best practice consensus statement when applicable. RESULTS: The consensus group generated recommendations, delineating an approach to best practice for oral care in critically ill adult patients. Recommendations included guidance for frequency and procedure for oral assessment, toothbrushing, and moisturising the mouth. Evidence on the use of chlorhexidine is not consistent and caution is advised with its routine use. CONCLUSION: Oral care is an important part of the care of critically ill patients, both ventilated and non-ventilated. An effective oral care programme reduces the incidence of pneumonia and promotes patient comfort. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Effective oral care is integral to safe patient care in critical care.

Net ultrafiltration prescription survey in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is common in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and ultrafiltration (UF) is frequently required. There is lack of guidance on optimal UF practice. We aimed to explore patterns of UF practice, barriers to achieving UF targets, and concerns related to UF practice among practitioners working in Europe. METHODS: This was a sub-study of an international open survey with focus on adult intensivists and nephrologists, advanced practice providers, and ICU and dialysis nurses working in Europe. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-five practitioners (75% intensivists) from 31 countries completed the survey. The most common criteria for UF initiation was persistent oliguria/anuria (45.6%), followed by pulmonary edema (16.7%). Continuous renal replacement therapy was the preferred initial modality (90.0%). The median initial and maximal rate of net ultrafiltration (UFNET) prescription in hemodynamically stable patients were 149 mL/hr. (IQR 100-200) and 300 mL/hr. (IQR 201-352), respectively, compared to a median UFNET rate of 98 mL/hr. (IQR 51-108) in hemodynamically unstable patients and varied significantly between countries. Two-thirds of nurses and 15.5% of physicians reported assessing fluid balance hourly. When hemodynamic instability occurred, 70.1% of practitioners reported decreasing the rate of fluid removal, followed by starting or increasing the dose of a vasopressor (51.3%). Most respondents (90.7%) believed in early fluid removal and expressed willingness to participate in a study comparing protocol-based fluid removal versus usual care. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant variation in UF practice and perception among practitioners in Europe. Future research should focus on identifying the best strategies of prescribing and managing ultrafiltration in critically ill patients.