Rapid Critical Care Training for Nurses Deployed to Intensive Care Units During the COVID-19 Surge.

BACKGROUND: During the first COVID-19 pandemic wave, non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) nurses were deployed to temporary ICUs to provide critical care for the patient surge. A rapid critical care training program was designed to prepare them to care for patients in either temporary or permanent ICUs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of this training program in preparing non-ICU nurses to provide critical care for COVID-19 patients in temporary ICUs. METHODS: A survey was used to evaluate the impact of rapid critical care training on nurses' critical care skills and compare the experiences of nurses deployed to temporary versus permanent ICUs. Data were analyzed with χ2 and Spearman ρ tests with α = .05. RESULTS: Compared with nurses in other locations, nurses deployed to temporary ICUs were less likely to report improved capability in managing mechanical ventilation; infusions of sedative, vasoactive, and paralytic agents; and continuous renal replacement therapy. Nurses in temporary ICUs also reported being less prepared to care for critically ill patients (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The rapid training program provided basic critical care knowledge for nurses in temporary ICUs, but experiences differed significantly between those deployed to temporary versus permanent ICUs. Although participants believed they provided safe care, nurses with no critical care experience cannot be expected to learn comprehensive critical care from expedited instruction; more formal clinical support is needed for nurses in temporary ICUs. Rapid critical care training can meet emergency needs for nurses capable of providing critical care.

An Exploratory and Qualitative Analysis of Self-Reported Evaluations for Fever.

Background: Despite the high prevalence of post-operative fever, a variety of approaches are taken as to the components of a fever evaluation, when it should be undertaken, and when empiric antibiotic agents should be started. Hypothesis: There is a lack of consensus surrounding many common components of a post-operative fever evaluation. Patients and Methods: The Surgical Infection Society membership was surveyed to determine practices surrounding evaluation of post-operative fever. Eight scenarios were posed in febrile (38.5°C), post-operative general surgery or trauma patients, with 19 possible components of work-up (physical examination, complete blood count [CBC], fungal biomarkers, lactate and procalcitonin [PCT] concentrations, cultures, imaging) and management (antibiotic agents). Each scenario was then re-considered for intensive care unit (ICU) patients (intubated/unstable hemodynamics). Agreement on a parameter (<1/4 or >3/4 of respondents) achieved consensus, positive or negative. Parameters between had equipoise; α was set at 0.05. Results: Among the examined scenarios, only CBC and physical examination received positive consensus across most scenarios. Blood/urine cultures, imaging, lactate, inflammatory biomarkers, and the empiric administration of antibiotic agents did not reach consensus; support was variable depending on the clinical scenario, illness severity, and the individual preferences of the answering clinician. The qualitative portion of the survey identified "fever threshold and duration," "clinical suspicion," and "physiologic manifestation" as the most important factors for deciding about the initiation of a fever evaluation and the potential empiric administration of antibiotic agents. Conclusions: There is consensus only for physical and examination routine laboratory work when initiating the evaluation of febrile post-operative patients. However, there are multiple components of a fever evaluation that individual respondents would select depending on the clinical scenario and severity of illness. Parameters demonstrating equipoise are potential candidates for formal guidance or pragmatic prospective trials.

A Decade of Firearm Injuries: Have We Improved?

BACKGROUND: Firearm injuries are a growing public health issue, with marked increases coinciding with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study evaluates temporal trends over the past decade, hypothesizing that despite a growing number of injuries, mortality would be unaffected. In addition, the study characterizes the types of centers affected disproportionately by the reported firearm injury surge in 2020. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years and older with firearm injuries from 2011-2020 were identified retrospectively using the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB®). Trauma centers not operating for the entirety of the study period were excluded to allow for temporal comparisons. Joinpoint regression and risk-standardized mortality ratios (SMR) were used to evaluate injury counts and adjusted mortality over time. Subgroup analysis was performed to describe centers with the largest increases in firearm injuries in 2020. RESULTS: A total of 238,674 patients, treated at 420 unique trauma centers, met inclusion criteria. Firearm injuries increased by 31.1% in 2020, compared to an annual percent change of 2.4% from 2011-2019 (p = 0.01). Subset analysis of centers with the largest changes in firearm injuries in 2020 found that they were more often level I centers, with higher historic trauma volumes and percentages of firearm injuries (p < 0.001). Unadjusted mortality decreased by 0.9% from 2011-2020, but after controlling for demographics, injury characteristics and physiology, there was no difference in adjusted mortality over the same time period. However, among patients with injury severity scores ≥25, adjusted mortality improved compared to 2011 (SMR of 0.950 in 2020, 95% CI 0.916 - 0.986). CONCLUSIONS: Firearm injuries pose an increasing burden to trauma systems, with level I and high-volume centers seeing the largest growth in 2020. Despite increasing numbers of firearm injuries, mortality has remained unchanged over the past decade. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Prognostic/Epidemiologic.

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Utilization of Emergency Medical Services in New York City.

Background: This study evaluates trends in the utilization of emergency medical services (EMS) in New York City, the "epicenter" of the first "wave" of the coronavirus pandemic. We hypothesize that EMS call volumes decreased overall in New York City during the first year of the pandemic, specifically with respect to trauma/injury calls. Contrarily, we posit that calls for "sick" events increased given pervasive fear of virus transmission. Materials and Methods: Retrospective New York City EMS calls data (January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020) were obtained from the NYC Open Data/EMS Incident Dispatch database. Total EMS calls, trauma/injury calls, and "sick" event calls were collected for New York City and for all five boroughs. Census data for each borough were used to weigh daily EMS calls per 100,000 individuals. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare pre-pandemic (2019 to March 2020) versus pandemic (April 2020 to December 2020) EMS call volumes, p = 0.05. Results: Median daily EMS calls per 100,000 individuals decreased 21.6% at the start of the pandemic across New York City (pre-pandemic, 3,262 calls; pandemic, 2,556 calls; p < 0.001) and similarly decreased when stratified by borough (all, p < 0.001). Median daily trauma/injury and sick event calls per 100,000 also decreased in New York City and the five boroughs from pre-pandemic to pandemic time periods (all, p < 0.001). Discussion and Conclusions: These data reflect an unprecedented window into EMS utilization during an infectious disease pandemic. As decreased EMS utilization for multiple conditions likely reflects delayed or impeded access to care, utilization data have important implications for provision of acute care services during possible future disruptions related to the pandemic.

Self-Reported Diagnosis and Management of Surgical Site Infection Highlights Lack of Objective Measures and Treatment Guidance.

Background: There is little guidance regarding empiric therapy for superficial surgical site infections (SSIs). Management of incisions with signs of SSI lacks consensus and management is variable among individual surgeons. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society was surveyed regarding management of SSIs. Cases were provided with varying wound descriptions, initial wound class (WC), post-operative day, and presence of a prosthesis. Responses were in multiple-choice format; statistics: χ2; α = 0.05. Results: Seventy-eight members responded. For appearance scenarios, respondents believed that both mild erythema (55%) and clear drainage (64%) could be observed, whereas substantial (>3 cm) erythema or purulence should be treated with complete (22% and 50%) or partial (55% and 40%) opening of the incision. Degree of erythema did not influence administration of antibiotic agents, but purulence was more likely than clear drainage to be treated with antibiotics (38% vs. 6%; p < 0.001). There were no differences based on WC, except that clean cases were more likely than higher WC scenarios to be treated with gram-positive coverage alone (WC 1 [26%] vs. 2 [10%] vs. 3 [13%] vs. 4 [4%]; p < 0.001). Post-operative day (POD) three appeared to be an inflection point for more aggressive treatment of suspected incisional SSI, with fewer (POD 0 [86%] vs. POD day 3 [54%]; p < 0.001) reporting observation. Respondents were more likely to obtain imaging, start broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and return to the operating room for purulence in the presence of a mesh. Conclusions: Presented with escalating possibility of SSI, respondents reported lower rates of observation, increased use of antibiotic agents, and increased surgical drainage. Many scenarios lack consensus regarding appropriate therapy. The complete elimination of SSIs is unlikely to be accomplished soon, and this study provides a framework for understanding how surgeons approach SSIs, and potential areas for further research or pragmatic guidance.

Different Surgeon, Different Closure: Lack of Consensus on Appropriate Closure Technique for Various Case Scenarios.

Background: Many techniques for closure of surgical incisions are available to the surgeon, but there is minimal guidance regarding which technique(s) should be utilized at the conclusion of surgery and under what circumstances. Hypothesis: Management of incisions at the conclusion of surgery lacks consensus and varies among individual surgeons. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society membership was surveyed on the management of incisions at the conclusion of surgery. Several case scenarios were provided to test the influences of operation type, intra-operative contamination, and hemodynamic stability on incision management (e.g., close fascia or skin, use of incision/wound vacuum-assisted closure [VAC] device). Responses by two-thirds of participants were required to achieve consensus. Data analysis by χ2 test and logistic regression, a = 0.05. Response heterogeneity was quantified by the Shannon index (SI). Results: Among 78 respondents, consensus was achieved for elective splenectomy (91% close skin/dry dressing). Open appendectomy and left colectomy/end-colostomy had the greatest heterogeneity (SI, 1.68 and 1.63, respectively). During trauma laparotomy, the majority used damage control for hemodynamic instability (53%-67%) but not for hemodynamically stable patients (0%-1.3%; p < 0.001). Additional consensus was achieved for close skin/dry dressing for hemodynamically stable trauma splenectomy patients (87%) and fascia open/wound VAC for hemodynamically unstable colon resection/anastomosis (67%). Fecal diversion for rectal injury and colon resection/anastomosis (both when hemodynamically stable) had high heterogeneity (SI, 1.56 and 1.48, respectively). In penetrating trauma, sentiment was for more use of wet-to-dry dressings and incision/wound VAC with increased contamination in hemodynamically stable patients. Conclusions: Damage control was favored in hemodynamically unstable trauma patients, with use of wet-to-dry dressings and incision/wound VAC with spillage after penetrating trauma. However, most scenarios did not achieve consensus. High variability of practices regarding incision management at the conclusion of surgery was confirmed. Prospective studies and evidence-based guidance are needed to guide decision making at end-operation.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in a health care worker population during the early pandemic.

BACKGROUND: While others have reported severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2(SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence studies in health care workers (HCWs), we leverage the use of a highly sensitive coronavirus antigen microarray to identify a group of seropositive health care workers who were missed by daily symptom screening that was instituted prior to any epidemiologically significant local outbreak. Given that most health care facilities rely on daily symptom screening as the primary method to identify SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers, here, we aim to determine how demographic, occupational, and clinical variables influence SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among health care workers. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional survey of HCWs for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity conducted from May 15th to June 30th 2020 at a 418-bed academic hospital in Orange County, California. From an eligible population of 5,349 HCWs, study participants were recruited in two ways: an open cohort, and a targeted cohort. The open cohort was open to anyone, whereas the targeted cohort that recruited HCWs previously screened for COVID-19 or work in high-risk units. A total of 1,557 HCWs completed the survey and provided specimens, including 1,044 in the open cohort and 513 in the targeted cohort. Demographic, occupational, and clinical variables were surveyed electronically. SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was assessed using a coronavirus antigen microarray (CoVAM), which measures antibodies against eleven viral antigens to identify prior infection with 98% specificity and 93% sensitivity. RESULTS: Among tested HCWs (n = 1,557), SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was 10.8%, and risk factors included male gender (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.06), exposure to COVID-19 outside of work (2.29, 1.14-4.29), working in food or environmental services (4.85, 1.51-14.85), and working in COVID-19 units (ICU: 2.28, 1.29-3.96; ward: 1.59, 1.01-2.48). Amongst 1,103 HCWs not previously screened, seropositivity was 8.0%, and additional risk factors included younger age (1.57, 1.00-2.45) and working in administration (2.69, 1.10-7.10). CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity is significantly higher than reported case counts even among HCWs who are meticulously screened. Seropositive HCWs missed by screening were more likely to be younger, work outside direct patient care, or have exposure outside of work.

Six Long-Standing Questions about Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Surgery.

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common adverse event occurring in surgical patients. Optimal prevention of SSIs requires the bundled integration of a variety of measures before, during, and after surgery. Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) is an effective measure for preventing SSIs. It aims to counteract the inevitable introduction of bacteria that colonize skin or mucosa into the surgical site during the intervention. This document aims to guide surgeons in appropriate administration of SAP by addressing six key questions. The expert panel identifies a list of principles in response to these questions that every surgeon around the world should always respect in administering SAP.

Infection or Inflammation: Are Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis, Acute Cholecystitis, and Acute Diverticulitis Infectious Diseases?

Background: It is recognized increasingly that common surgical infections of the peritoneal cavity may be treated with antibiotic agents alone, or source control surgery with short-course antimicrobial therapy. By extension, testable hypotheses have emerged that such infections may not actually be infectious diseases, but rather represent inflammation that can be treated successfully with neither surgery nor antibiotic agents. The aim of this review is to examine extant data to determine which of uncomplicated acute appendicitis (uAA), uncomplicated acute calculous cholecystitis (uACC), or uncomplicated mild acute diverticulitis (umAD) might be amenable to management using supportive therapy alone, consistent with the principles of antimicrobial stewardship. Methods: Review of pertinent English-language literature and expert opinion. Results: Only two small trials have examined whether uAA can be managed with observation and supportive therapy alone, one of which is underpowered and was stopped prematurely because of challenging patient recruitment. Data are insufficient to determine the safety and efficacy of non-antibiotic therapy of uAA. Uncomplicated acute calculous cholecystitis is not primarily an infectious disease; infection is a secondary phenomenon. Even when bactibilia is present, there is no high-quality evidence to suggest that mild disease should be treated with antibiotic agents. There is evidence to indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated for urgent/emergency cholecystectomy for uACC, but not in the post-operative period. Uncomplicated mild acute diverticulitis, generally Hinchey 1a or 1b in current nomenclature, does not benefit from antimicrobial agents based on multiple clinical studies. The implication is that umAD is inflammatory and not an infectious disease. Non-antimicrobial management is reasonable. Conclusions: Among the considered disease entities, the evidence is strongest that umAD is not an infectious disease and can be treated without antibiotic agents, intermediate regarding uACC, and lacking for uAA. A plausible hypothesis is that these inflammatory conditions are related to disruption of the normal microbiome, resulting in dysbiosis, which is defined as an imbalance of the natural microflora, especially of the gut, that is believed to contribute to a range of conditions of ill health. As for restorative pre- or probiotic therapy to reconstitute the microbiome, no recommendation can be made in terms of treatment, but it is not recommended for prevention of primary or recurrent disease.

Omicron, Long-COVID, and the Safety of Elective Surgery for Adults and Children: Joint Guidance from the Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee of the Surgical Infection Society and the Surgery Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services.

Background: Active and recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections are associated with morbidity and mortality after surgery in adults. Current recommendations suggest delaying elective surgery in survivors for four to 12 weeks, depending on initial illness severity. Recently, the predominant causes of COVID-19 are the highly transmissible/less virulent Omicron variant/subvariants. Moreover, increased survivability of primary infections has engendered the long-COVID syndrome, with protean manifestations that may persist for months. Considering the more than 600,000,000 COVID-19 survivors, surgeons will likely be consulted by recovered patients seeking elective operations. Knowledge gaps of the aftermath of Omicron infections raise questions whether extant guidance for timing of surgery still applies to adults or should apply to the pediatric population. Methods: Scoping review of relevant English-language literature. Results: Most supporting data derive from early in the pandemic when the Alpha variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) predominated. The Omicron variant/subvariants generally cause milder infections with less organ dysfunction; many infections are asymptomatic, especially in children. Data are scant with respect to adult surgical outcomes after Omicron infection, and especially so for pediatric surgical outcomes at any stage of the pandemic. Conclusions: Numerous knowledge gaps persist with respect to the disease, the recovered pre-operative patient, the nature of the proposed procedure, and supporting data. For example, should the waiting period for all but urgent elective surgery be extended beyond 12 weeks, e.g., after serious/critical illness, or for patients with long-COVID and organ dysfunction? Conversely, can the waiting periods for asymptomatic patients or vaccinated patients be shortened? How shall children be risk-stratified, considering the distinctiveness of pediatric COVID-19 and the paucity of data? Forthcoming guidelines will hopefully answer these questions but may require ongoing modifications based on additional new data and the epidemiology of emerging strains.

Thrombotic Events and Anticoagulation-Related Bleeding Complications in Critically Ill Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background: Thrombosis (T) is common in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, and d-dimer concentrations correlate with outcomes. Controversy exists with regards to anticoagulation (AC) for patients. We implemented a full-heparinization AC protocol from the onset of the pandemic and hypothesized that a safety signal would be undetectable. Patients and Methods: Prospective evaluation of 111 patients with COVID-19 critical illness hospitalized from March to June 2020. All patients received therapeutic heparinoid-based AC from admission. Incidences of T, bleeding (B), or both (BT) were noted. The primary outcome was mortality. Kruskal-Wallis test and logistic regression were performed. Results are expressed as n (%), median (interquartile range) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Alpha was set at 0.05. Results: Thirty-two patients (28%) had T, 23 (20%) had B, and 14 (12%) had BT; 42 (40%) patients were unaffected. Two logistic regression models (outcome = mortality) evaluated BT as T, or BT as B. For BT as T, neither T, B, nor male gender predicted mortality; similarly, for BT as B, neither T, B, nor male gender predicted mortality. Factors associated with higher odds of death included higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.13; p = 0.0045), higher d-dimer concentration (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01; p = 0.043), and higher activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16; p = 0.010). Conclusions: Neither T nor B predicted mortality in this prospective cohort of anticoagulated patients with COVID-19 critical illness. These data support continued full-dose heparinoid prophylaxis.

Video-Based Stop the Bleed Training: A New Era in Education.

INTRODUCTION: Uncontrolled bleeding is a leading cause of preventable death. The "Stop the Bleed" (StB) program trains laypersons in hemorrhage control. This study evaluated the efficacy of video-based StB training. METHODS: Participants watched two different videos: a didactic video (DdV) and a technical video (TeV) demonstrating proper techniques for StB skills (i.e., direct pressure [DP], wound packing [WP], and tourniquet application [TA]). Then, they completed a standardized skills examination (SE). Participants were surveyed at three different time points (baseline, post-DdV, and post-SE) for comparison. We compared paired categorical and continuous variables with the McNemar-Bowker test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, respectively. Alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: One hundred six participants were enrolled: 52% were female and the median age was 23 y (22, 24). At baseline, 29%, 8%, and 13% reported being somewhat or extremely confident with DP, WP, and TA, respectively. These percentages increased to 92%, 79%, and 76%, respectively, after the DdV (all, P < 0.0001). After the TeV and SE, percentages increased further to 100%, 96%, and 100% (all, P < 0.0001). During the SE, 96%, 99%, and 89% of participants were able to perform DP, WP, and TA without prompting. Among participants, 98% agreed that the video course was effective and 79% agreed that the DdV and TeV were engaging. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a novel paradigm of video-based StB learning combined with an in-person, standardized SE. Confidence scores in performing the three crucial StB tasks increased significantly during and after course completion. Through remote learning, StB could be disseminated more widely.

Improving Communication and Response to Clinical Deterioration to Increase Patient Safety in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: In the critical care setting, early recognition of clinical decompensation is imperative to trigger prompt intervention and optimize patient outcomes. LOCAL PROBLEM: In a 20-bed surgical intensive care unit of an urban academic medical center, cases of clinical deterioration that highlighted opportunities to improve the communication process prompted a reassessment of health care provider roles and responsibilities. METHODS: A quality improvement initiative was implemented to enhance communication among intensive care unit clinical staff members, improve the timeliness of reporting clinical deterioration, and ensure implementation of timely, appropriate interventions to eliminate adverse outcomes. INTERVENTIONS: Nurses were surveyed to determine their perceptions of communication and collaboration among providers. Education was provided that focused on familiarizing nurses with clinical conditions necessitating direct notification of the attending surgical intensivist and included review of a case in which escalation of care did not occur. Multidisciplinary rounds were expanded to engage night-shift nurses in clinical discussions and decision-making. A template was created to document episodes of escalation in the electronic health record. RESULTS: Since implementation of the quality improvement interventions, no incidents of patient harm or death related to failure to escalate have occurred to date. A total of 16 episodes of escalation for clinical deterioration were documented in the electronic health record. Most nurses reported an increased level of confidence in understanding when to escalate concerns about clinical deterioration. CONCLUSION: Implementing a multimodal program to empower nurses to escalate clinical concerns directly to the attending physician eliminated adverse events related to failure to escalate.

Factors associated with limitation of care after fatal injury.

BACKGROUND: There is variability in end-of-life care of trauma patients. Many survive resuscitation but die after limitation of care (LoC). This study investigated LoC at a level I center. METHODS: Adult trauma deaths between January 2016 and June 2020 were reviewed. Patients were stratified into "full code" versus any LoC (i.e., do not resuscitate, no escalation, or withdrawal of care) and by timing to LoC. Emergency department and "brain" deaths were excluded. Unadjusted logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards were used for analyses. Results include n (%) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with α = 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included; 15 patients (8%) died full code and 158 (91%) died after LoC. Seventy-seven patients (48%) underwent incremental LoC. Age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08; p = 0.0010) and female sex (OR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.01-13.64; p = 0.0487) increased the odds of LoC; number of anatomic injuries (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98; p = 0.0146), chest injuries (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score chest, >3) (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.26; p = 0.0021), extremity injury (AIS score, >3) (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.64; p = 0.0170), and hospital complications equal to 1 (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.78; p = 0.0201) or ≥2 (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.87; p = 0.0319) decreased the odds of LoC. For those having LoC, final limitations were implemented in <14 days for 83% of patients; markers of injury severity (e.g., Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and AIS score) increased the odds of early LoC implementation. CONCLUSION: Most patients died after LoC was implemented in a timely fashion. Significant head injury increased the odds of LoC. The number of injuries, severe chest and extremity injuries, and increasing number of complications decreased the odds of LoC, presumably because patients died before LoCs were initiated. Understanding factors contributing to end-of-life care could help guide discussions regarding LoCs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

Ertapenem Concentrations in Obese Patients Undergoing Surgery.

Background: Antimicrobial prophylaxis is a cornerstone to preventing surgical site infections (SSIs). Ertapenem, a carbapenem antibiotic, is commonly used for surgical prophylaxis for many different procedures, including patients undergoing colorectal and other gastrointestinal surgeries. Obesity complicates surgical intervention and increases the risk for SSIs. This study aims to describe the pharmacokinetics of ertapenem for surgical prophylaxis using a population pharmacokinetic model. Patients and Methods: Ten patients were recruited and given a single dose of ertapenem 1 g intravenous over 30 minutes. Plasma samples were obtained at multiple time points over 24 hours and assayed via validated high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Pharmacokinetic analyses were conducted using a population pharmacokinetic analysis to generate pharmacokinetic parameters used in the subsequent 5,000 patient Monte Carlo simulation. The probability of target attainment (PTA) for free drug concentrations remaining above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for ≥40% was used. Results: The mean maximum plasma concentration and area under the concentration time curve (AUC0-∞) was 40.7 ± 16.5 and 148.8 ± 28.0, respectively, with a half-life of the terminal portion to be 4.3 ± 0.8 hours. Monte Carlo simulations observed PTAs above 90% for MICs ≤0.25 and ≤0.125 mcg/mL in surgeries up to three and four hours, respectively. Sufficiently high PTAs were not attainable for MICs of ≥0.5 mcg/mL. Conclusions: Ertapenem given as 1 g single dose may be an appropriate candidate for surgical prophylaxis in obese patients undergoing surgeries of four hours or less.

It is time to define an organizational model for the prevention and management of infections along the surgical pathway: a worldwide cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of the study were to investigate the organizational characteristics of acute care facilities worldwide in preventing and managing infections in surgery; assess participants' perception regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, antibiotic prescribing practices, and source control; describe awareness about the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IPC measures; and determine the role of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on said awareness. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 1432 health care workers (HCWs) belonging to a mailing list provided by the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. The survey was open from May 22, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Three reminders were sent, after 7, 14, and 21 days. RESULTS: Three hundred four respondents from 72 countries returned a questionnaire, with an overall response rate of 21.2%. Respectively, 90.4% and 68.8% of participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary IPC team or a multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team. Local protocols for antimicrobial therapy of surgical infections and protocols for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis were present in 76.6% and 90.8% of hospitals, respectively. In 23.4% and 24.0% of hospitals no surveillance systems for surgical site infections and no monitoring systems of used antimicrobials were implemented. Patient and family involvement in IPC management was considered to be slightly or not important in their hospital by the majority of respondents (65.1%). Awareness of the global burden of AMR among HCWs was considered very important or important by 54.6% of participants. The COVID-19 pandemic was considered by 80.3% of respondents as a very important or important factor in raising HCWs awareness of the IPC programs in their hospital. Based on the survey results, the authors developed 15 statements for several questions regarding the prevention and management of infections in surgery. The statements may be the starting point for designing future evidence-based recommendations. CONCLUSION: Adequacy of prevention and management of infections in acute care facilities depends on HCWs behaviours and on the organizational characteristics of acute health care facilities to support best practices and promote behavioural change. Patient involvement in the implementation of IPC is still little considered. A debate on how operationalising a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the HCWs responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCWs and patients, should be opened.

Different Surgeon, Different Duration: Lack of Consensus on the Appropriate Duration of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis and Therapy in Surgical Practice.

Background: The principles of antimicrobial stewardship promote the appropriate prescribing of agents with respect to efficacy, safety, duration, and cost. Antibiotic resistance often results from inappropriate use (e.g., indication, selection, duration). We evaluated practice variability in duration of antimicrobials in surgical infection treatment (Rx) or prophylaxis (Px). Hypothesis: There is lack of consensus regarding the duration of antibiotic Px and Rx for many common indications. Methods: A survey was distributed to the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) regarding the use of antimicrobial agents for a variety of scenarios. Standard descriptive statistics were used to compare survey responses. Heterogeneity among question responses were compared using the Shannon Index, expressed as natural units (nats). Results: Sixty-three SIS members responded, most of whom (67%) have held a leadership position within the SIS or contributed as an annual meeting moderator or discussant; 76% have been in practice for more than five years. Regarding peri-operative Px, more than 80% agreed that a single dose is adequate for most indications, with the exceptions of gangrenous cholecystitis (40% single dose, 38% pre-operative +24 hours) and inguinal hernia repair requiring a bowel resection (70% single dose). There was more variability regarding the use of antibiotic Px for various bedside procedures with respondents split between none needed (range, 27%-66%) versus a single dose (range, 31%-67%). Opinions regarding the duration of antimicrobial Rx for hospitalized patients who have undergone a source control operation or procedure varied widely based on indication. Only two of 20 indications achieved more than 60% consensus despite available class 1 evidence: seven days for ventilator-associated pneumonia (77%), and four plus one days for perforated appendicitis (62%). Conclusions: Except for peri-operative antibiotic Px, there is little consensus regarding antibiotic duration among surgical infection experts, despite class 1 evidence and several available guidelines. This highlights the need for further high-level research and better dissemination of guidelines.

Disparities in Insurance Status Are Associated With Outcomes but Not Timing of Trauma Care.

INTRODUCTION: Patient factors influence outcomes after injury. Delays in care have a crucial impact. We investigated the associations between patient characteristics and timing of transfer from the emergency department to definitive care. METHODS: This was a review of adult trauma patients treated between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Bivariate analyses were used to build Cox proportional hazards models. We built separate logistic and negative binomial regression models for secondary outcomes using mixed-step selection to minimize the Akaike information criterion c. RESULTS: A total of 1219 patients were included; 68.5% were male, 56.8% White, 11.2% Black, and 7.8% Asian/Pacific Islander. The average age was 51 ± 21 y. Overall, 13.7% of patients were uninsured. The average length of stay was 5 d and mortality was 5.9%. Shorter transfer time out of the emergency department was associated with higher tier of activation (relative risk [RR] 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.77; P = 0.0074), Injury Severity Score between 16 and 24 points (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.04-2.32; P = 0.0307) or ≥25 (RR 3.85, 95% CI 2.45-5.94; P = 0.0001), and penetrating injury. Longer time to event was associated with Glasgow coma scale score ≥14 points (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.85; P = 0.0141). Uninsured patients were less likely to be admitted (odds ratio 0.29, 95% CI 0.17-0.48; P = 0.0001) and more likely to experience shorter length of stay (incidence rate ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.24-0.51; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Injury characteristics and insurance status were associated with patient outcomes in this retrospective, single-center study. We found no disparity in timing of intrafacility transfer, perhaps indicating that initial management protocols preserve equity.