Benefits of collaborative patient care rounds in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Improving care of critically ill patients requires using an interprofessional care model and care standardisation. OBJECTIVES: Determine whether collaborative patient care rounds in the intensive care unit increases practice consistency with respect to common considerations such as delirium prevention, device use, and indicated prophylaxis, among others. Secondary objective to assess whether collaborative interprofessional format improved nursing perceptions of collaboration. METHODS: Single centre, pre- and post- intervention design. collaborative patient care rounding format implemented in three intensive care units in an academic tertiary care centre. format consisted of scripted nursing presentation, provider checklist of additional practice considerations, and daily priority goals documentation. measurements included nursing participation, consideration of selected practice items, daily goal verbalisation, and nursing perception of collaboration. RESULTS: Pre- and post-intervention measurements indicate gains in consideration of eight of thirteen bundle items (p < 0.05), with the greatest gains seen in nurse-presented items. Increases were observed in verbalisation of daily goals (59.8% versus 89.1%, p < 0.0001), nurse participation (83.9% versus 91.8%, p = 0.056), and nurse collaboration ratings (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study describes implementation of collaborative patient care rounds with corresponding increases in consideration of selected practice items, verbalisation of daily goals, and perceptions of collaboration.

Early Mobilization in the ICU: A Collaborative, Integrated Approach.

To develop and implement a protocol to increase patient mobility in three adult ICUs using an interdisciplinary approach and existing resources. DESIGN: The Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice was used for synthesis of literature and intervention planning. A retrospective pre- and post-intervention data collection design was used to compare outcomes of interest. SETTING: Three adult ICUs (64 total beds) in an urban, academic hospital. Physician, nursing, respiratory therapy, physical therapy, and occupational therapy representatives participated in planning and development. All adult ICU patients were included. INTERVENTIONS: Development and implementation of an inclusive early mobility protocol in three adult ICUs. Focus on interdisciplinary collaboration to restructure workflow, focusing on optimization and coordination of standard tasks. Multimodal education occurred in an interdisciplinary setting and on-site champions facilitated implementation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Time from admission to ambulation, overall frequency of ambulation, and frequency of ambulation by age group were assessed across three time periods: no awareness (Time 1), awareness without protocol (Time 2), and protocolization (Time 3). Decrease in hours from admission to ambulation were seen in the cardiovascular ICU (62.3 vs 56.1; p = 0.10) and surgical ICU (64.9 vs 58.6; p = 0.022). Significant increase demonstrated in the proportion of patients who ambulated while in the ICU (24.6% vs 33.0%; p < 0.001). All age groups had increase in frequency of ambulation. The largest gains in patients over 65 years old (T1 = 19.7%, T2 = 26.6%, T3 = 30.9%; p < 0.001). No change found in ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, or ventilator days. CONCLUSIONS: This single-center evidenced-based practice project demonstrated increased mobility for ICU patients without addition of staff resources following implementation of an early mobility protocol using an interdisciplinary approach. Successful implementation led to creation of mobility protocol toolkit for use across all ICUs in the broader health system.

The 2018 ISHLT/APM/AST/ICCAC/STSW Recommendations for the Psychosocial Evaluation of Adult Cardiothoracic Transplant Candidates and Candidates for Long-term Mechanical Circulatory Support.

The psychosocial evaluation is well-recognized as an important component of the multifaceted assessment process to determine candidacy for heart transplantation, lung transplantation, and long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS). However, there is no consensus-based set of recommendations for either the full range of psychosocial domains to be assessed during the evaluation, or the set of processes and procedures to be used to conduct the evaluation, report its findings, and monitor patients' receipt of and response to interventions for any problems identified. This document provides recommendations on both evaluation content and process. It represents a collaborative effort of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) and the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine, American Society of Transplantation, International Consortium of Circulatory Assist Clinicians, and Society for Transplant Social Workers. The Nursing, Health Science and Allied Health Council of the ISHLT organized a Writing Committee composed of international experts representing the ISHLT and the collaborating societies. This Committee synthesized expert opinion and conducted a comprehensive literature review to support the psychosocial evaluation content and process recommendations that were developed. The recommendations are intended to dovetail with current ISHLT guidelines and consensus statements for the selection of candidates for cardiothoracic transplantation and MCS implantation. Moreover, the recommendations are designed to promote consistency across programs in the performance of the psychosocial evaluation by proposing a core set of content domains and processes that can be expanded as needed to meet programs' unique needs and goals.

The 2018 ISHLT/APM/AST/ICCAC/STSW recommendations for the psychosocial evaluation of adult cardiothoracic transplant candidates and candidates for long-term mechanical circulatory support.

The psychosocial evaluation is well-recognized as an important component of the multifaceted assessment process to determine candidacy for heart transplantation, lung transplantation, and long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS). However, there is no consensus-based set of recommendations for either the full range of psychosocial domains to be assessed during the evaluation, or the set of processes and procedures to be used to conduct the evaluation, report its findings, and monitor patients' receipt of and response to interventions for any problems identified. This document provides recommendations on both evaluation content and process. It represents a collaborative effort of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) and the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine, American Society of Transplantation, International Consortium of Circulatory Assist Clinicians, and Society for Transplant Social Workers. The Nursing, Health Science and Allied Health Council of the ISHLT organized a Writing Committee composed of international experts representing the ISHLT and the collaborating societies. This Committee synthesized expert opinion and conducted a comprehensive literature review to support the psychosocial evaluation content and process recommendations that were developed. The recommendations are intended to dovetail with current ISHLT guidelines and consensus statements for the selection of candidates for cardiothoracic transplantation and MCS implantation. Moreover, the recommendations are designed to promote consistency across programs in the performance of the psychosocial evaluation by proposing a core set of content domains and processes that can be expanded as needed to meet programs' unique needs and goals.

Missing Domains of Lung Transplant Patient Selection.

The goal of consistent, predictable, and improved outcomes has continued to elude the scientific community in the 30 years since lung transplantation became the procedure of choice for patients with terminal, nonmalignant lung disease. BACKGROUND: Although there is consensus regarding disease-specific indications for lung transplant, ambiguity remains regarding how patient-specific attributes should influence lung transplant candidacy. This study had 3 aims (1) to establish the missing domains of the interdisciplinary assessment of the lung transplant candidate, (2) to have these domains validated by an international panel of lung transplant experts, and (3) to recommend the next step for inclusion of these domains into the lung transplant candidate selection process. METHODS: Three levels of evidence were reviewed. A search for standards and guidelines, a comprehensive literature review, and a validation of domains by experts were conducted. RESULTS: Seven domains of patient attributes were identified as relevant to lung transplant patient selection: cognitive performance, frailty, psychological factors, self-efficacy, social support, quality of life, and sociodemographic factors. Within each domain, several elements were identified to be incorporated in the process of patient assessment. CONCLUSION: Assessment of the missing domains and elements should be incorporated into the interdisciplinary lung transplant evaluation process. Standardized recognition and reporting of the patient-specific attributes will inform the work of individual transplant programs and the international transplant community. Further study is needed to associate these patient attributes with transplant outcomes. Improved understanding is needed regarding how nurses assess lung transplant candidates and how they communicate their findings within interdisciplinary settings.