Psychological symptoms and health-related quality of life in intubated and non-intubated intensive care survivors: A multicentre, prospective observational cohort study.

Objective: To compare long-term psychological symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in intubated versus non-intubated ICU survivors. Design: Prospective, multicentre observational cohort study. Setting: Four tertiary medical-surgical ICUs in Australia. Participants: Intubated and non-intubated adult ICU survivors. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes: clinically significant psychological symptoms at 3- and 12-month follow-up using Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome-14 for post-traumatic stress disorder; Depression, Anxiety Stress Scales-21 for depression, anxiety, and stress. Secondary outcomes: HRQOL, using EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaire. Results: Of the 133 ICU survivors, 54/116 (47 %) had at least one clinically significant psychological symptom (i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, stress) at follow-up. Clinically significant scores for psychological symptoms were observed in 26 (39 %) versus 16 (32 %) at 3-months [odds ratio 1.4, 95 % confidence interval (0.66-3.13), p = 0.38]; 23 (37 %) versus 10 (31 %) at 12-months [odds ratio 1.3, 95 % confidence interval (0.53-3.31), p = 0.57] of intubated versus non-intubated survivors, respectively. Usual activities and mobility were the most commonly affected HRQOL dimension, with >30 % at 3 versus months and >20 % at 12-months of overall survivors reporting ≥ moderate problems. There was no difference between the groups in any of the EQ5D dimensions. Conclusions: Nearly one-in-two (47 %) of the intubated and non-intubated ICU survivors reported clinically significant psychological symptoms at 3 and 12-month follow-ups. Overall, more than 30 % at 3-months and over 20 % at 12-months of the survivors in both groups had moderate or worse problems with their usual activities and mobility. The presence of psychological symptoms and HRQOL impairments was similar between the groups.

Oncology and intensive care doctors' perception of intensive care admission of cancer patients: A cross-sectional national survey.

INTRODUCTION: Prognosis in oncology has improved with early diagnosis and novel therapies. However, critical illness continues to trigger clinical and ethical dilemmas for the treating oncology and intensive care unit (ICU) doctors. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the perceptions of oncology and ICU doctors in managing critically ill cancer patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey exploring the management of a fictitious acutely deteriorating case vignette with solid-organ malignancy. The survey weblink was distributed between May and July 2022 to all Australian oncology and ICU doctors via newsletters to the members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia, the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society, and the College of Intensive Care Medicine inviting them to participate. The weblink was active till August 2022. The six domains included patient prognostication, advanced care plan, collaborative management, legal/ethical/moral challenges, ICU referral, and protocol-based ICU admission. The outcomes were reported as the level of agreement between oncology and ICU doctors for each domain/question. RESULTS: 184 responses (64 oncology and 120 ICU doctors) were analysed. Most respondents were specialists (78.1% [n = 50] oncology, 78.3% [n = 94] ICU doctors). Oncology doctors more commonly reported managing cancer patients with poor prognosis than ICU doctors (p < 0.001). Oncology doctors less commonly referred such patients for ICU admission (29.7% [n = 19] vs. 80.8% [n = 97], p < 0.001; odds ratio [OR] = 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.16) and infrequently encountered patients with prior goals of care (GOC) in medical emergency team escalations (40.6% [n = 26] vs. 86.7% [n = 104]; p < 0.001; OR = 0.06; 95% CI: 0.02-0.15; p < 0.001). Oncology doctors were less likely to discuss GOC during medical emergency team calls or within 24 h of ICU admission. More oncology doctors than ICU doctors thought that training rotation in the corresponding speciality group was beneficial (56.3% [n = 36] vs. 31.7% [n = 38]; p = 0.012; OR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.02-4.23; p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Oncology doctors were less likely to encounter acute patient deterioration or establish timely GOC for such patients. Oncology doctors believed that an ICU rotation during their training may have helped manage challenging situations.

Barriers and facilitators to achieving competence in lung ultrasound: A survey of physiotherapists following a lung ultrasound training course.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Lung ultrasound (LUS) is an emerging tool for acute respiratory physiotherapists. In Australia, there are a select few LUS training courses run for physiotherapists. Research to date has evaluated LUS training courses for physiotherapists in terms of knowledge and skill acquisition. The impact of LUS training on user competence and confidence and whether LUS is used in clinical practice has yet to be evaluated. This study therefore explored the impact of attending a physiotherapy LUS training course on acquisition of competence and confidence and the barriers and facilitators for physiotherapists in achieving competence in LUS. METHODS: A quantitative survey containing 21 questions was distributed to 77 Australian physiotherapists. RESULTS: Of the invited physiotherapists, 39 (50%) completed the survey. Most participants were working in intensive care, in the public hospital setting. Binary logistic regression was performed and demonstrated no significant difference in the relationship between years of clinical experience and having confidence in performing or interpreting LUS images. There was also no statistical significance in the relationship between years of clinical experience and gaining competence and accreditation in LUS. Of the 39 responders, 20 physiotherapists had performed at least one LUS scan since completing training; however, most identified they never use LUS to inform clinical decision-making. Only one physiotherapist had gained accreditation through an ultrasound-governing body. The most frequently reported barriers to achieving competence were lack of clinical time to devote to training and lack of an LUS supervisor. CONCLUSION: A majority of physiotherapists who participated in an LUS training course did not attain competence or accreditation, nor were they confident in performing LUS and interpreting images. Barriers exist that prevent intensive care physiotherapists from being able to use LUS in clinical practice. LUS is also not frequently used by acute respiratory physiotherapists to make clinical decisions.

Remi-fent 1-A pragmatic randomised controlled study to evaluate the feasibility of using remifentanil or fentanyl as sedation adjuncts in mechanically ventilated patients.

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a prospective randomised controlled trial (pRCT) comparing remifentanil and fentanyl as adjuncts to sedate mechanically ventilated patients. Design: Single-center, open-labelled, pRCT with blinded analysis. Setting: Australian tertiary intensive care unit (ICU). Participants: Consecutive adults between June 2020 and August 2021 expected to receive invasive ventilation beyond the next day and requiring opioid infusion were included. Exclusion criteria were pregnant/lactating women, intubation >12 h, or study-drug hypersensitivity. Interventions: Open-label fentanyl and remifentanil infusions per existing ICU protocols. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruiting ≥1 patient/week and >90 % compliance, namely no other opioid infusion used during the study period. Secondary outcomes included complications, ICU-, ventilator- and hospital-free days, and mortality (ICU, hospital). Blinded intention-to-treat analysis was performed concealing the allocation group. Results: 208 patients were enrolled (mean 3.7 patients/week). Compliance was 80.6 %. More patients developed complications with fentanyl than remifentanil: bradycardia (n = 44 versus n = 21; p < 0.001); hypotension (n = 78 versus n = 53; p < 0.01); delirium (n = 28 versus n = 15; p = 0.001). No differences were seen in ICU (24.3 % versus 27.6 %,p = 0.60) and hospital mortalities (26.2 % versus 30.5 %; p = 0.50). Ventilator-free days were higher with remifentanil (p = 0.01). Conclusions: We demonstrated the feasibility of enrolling patients for a pRCT comparing remifentanil and fentanyl as sedation adjuncts in mechanically ventilated patients. We failed to attain the study-opioid compliance target, likely because of patients with complex sedative/analgesic requirements. Secondary outcomes suggest that remifentanil may reduce mechanical ventilation duration and decrease the incidence of complications. An adequately powered multicentric phase 2 study is required to evaluate these results.

A Survey of Clinicians Regarding Goals of Care for Patients with Severe Comorbid Illnesses Hospitalized for an Acute Deterioration.

Background: Patients with terminal illnesses hospitalized with acute deteriorations often suffer from unnecessary/inappropriate therapies at the end of their lives. Appropriate advance care planning (ACP) practices aligned to patients' goals of care may mitigate this. Materials and methods: To explore the rationale for clinical decision-making in hospitalized patients with terminal illnesses and formulate a practice pathway to streamline care. Between May and December 2018, a questionnaire survey with three case vignettes derived from intensive care unit (ICU) patients was emailed to ICU, respiratory and renal doctors, and nurses in two Sydney hospitals. Respondents chose various management options ranging from all active therapies to palliation. The primary outcome was the proportion of responses for each management option. With these and a thematic analysis of responses to identify barriers to ACP practice, a practice pathway was formulated. Results: Of the 310 invited clinicians, 178 responded (57.4%). About 89.2% of respondents reported caring for dying patients frequently. Sixty percent saw patients suffering from prolonged therapies. Most respondents deemed patients in the case vignettes to be terminally ill, warranting ACP discussions. However, many still wanted to treat the acute deterioration with active ICU-level interventions. Most respondents reported being comfortable in having ACP discussions. Conclusion: The survey showed discordance between the stated opinions and the choice of management options for terminally ill patients with acute deteriorations; possibly due to the lack of a considered approach in choosing management options that align with medical consensus and the patient's/family's wishes, a practice pathway is suggested to improve management. How to cite this article: Sarangi RK, Rajamani A, Lakshmanan R, Srinivasan S, Arvind H. A Survey of Clinicians Regarding Goals of Care for Patients with Severe Comorbid Illnesses Hospitalized for an Acute Deterioration. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(4):457-463.

Personal protective equipment preparedness in intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: An Asia-Pacific follow-up survey.

BACKGROUND: Personal-protective equipment (PPE)-preparedness, defined as adherence to guidelines, healthcare worker (HCW) training, procuring PPE stocks and responding appropriately to suspected cases, is crucial to prevent HCW-infections. OBJECTIVES: To perform a follow-up survey to assess changes in PPE-preparedness across six Asia-Pacific countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A prospective follow-up cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted between 10/08/2020 to 01/09/ 2020, five months after the initial Phase 1 survey. The survey was sent to the same 231 intensivists across the six Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, Philippines, and Singapore) that participated in Phase 1. The main outcome measure was to identify any changes in PPE-preparedness between Phases 1 and 2. FINDINGS: Phase 2 had responses from 132 ICUs (57%). Compared to Phase 1 respondents reported increased use of PPE-based practices such as powered air-purifying respirator (40.2% vs. 6.1%), N95-masks at all times (86.4% vs. 53.7%) and double-gloving (87.9% vs. 42.9%). The reported awareness of PPE stocks (85.6% vs. 51.9%), mandatory showering policies following PPE-breach (31.1% vs. 6.9%) and safety perception amongst HCWs (60.6% vs. 28.4%) improved significantly during Phase 2. Despite reported statistically similar adoption rate of the buddy system in both phases (42.4% vs. 37.2%), there was a reported reduction in donning/doffing training in Phase 2 (44.3% vs. 60.2%). There were no reported differences HCW training in other areas, such as tracheal intubation, intra-hospital transport and safe waste disposal, between the 2 phases. CONCLUSIONS: Overall reported PPE-preparedness improved between the two survey periods, particularly in PPE use, PPE inventory and HCW perceptions of safety. However, the uptake of HCW training and implementation of low-cost safety measures continued to be low and the awareness of PPE breach management policies were suboptimal. Therefore, the key areas for improvement should focus on regular HCW training, implementing low-cost buddy-system and increasing awareness of PPE-breach management protocols.

Development and validation of a tool to appraise guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 infection control strategies in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines on infection control strategies in healthcare workers (HCWs) play an important role in protecting them during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. Poorly constructed guidelines that are incomprehensive and/or ambiguous may compromise HCWs' safety. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool to appraise guidelines on infection control strategies in HCWs based on the guidelines published early in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND OUTCOMES: A three-stage, web-based, Delphi consensus-building process among a panel of diverse HCWs and healthcare managers was performed. The tool was validated by appraising 40 international, specialty-specific, and procedure-specific guidelines along with national guidelines from countries with a wide range of gross national income. RESULTS: Overall consensus (≥75%) was reached at the end of three rounds for all six domains included in the tool. The Delphi panel recommended an ideal infection control guideline should encompass six domains: general characteristics (domain 1), engineering recommendations (domain 2), personal protective equipment (PPE) use (domain 3), and administrative aspects (domain 4-6) of infection control. The appraisal tool performed well across the six domains, and the inter-rater agreement was excellent for the 40 guidelines. All included guidelines performed relatively better in domains 1-3 than in domains 4-6, and this was more evident in guidelines originating from lower income countries. CONCLUSION: The guideline appraisal tool was robust and easy to use. Engineering recommendations aspects of infection control, administrative measures that promote optimal PPE use, and HCW wellbeing were generally lacking in assessed guidelines. This tool may enable health systems to adopt high-quality HCW infection control guidelines during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic and may also provide a framework for future guideline development.

Criteria, Processes, and Determination of Competence in Basic Critical Care Echocardiography Training: A Delphi Process Consensus Statement by the Learning Ultrasound in Critical Care (LUCC) Initiative.

BACKGROUND: With the paucity of high-quality studies on longitudinal basic critical care echocardiography (BCCE) training, expert opinion guidelines have guided BCCE competence educational standards and processes. However, existing guidelines lack precise detail due to methodological flaws during guideline development. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: To formulate methodologically robust guidelines on BCCE training using evidence and expert opinion, detailing specific criteria for every step, we conducted a modified Delphi process using the principles of the validated AGREE-II tool. Based on systematic reviews, the following domains were chosen: components of a longitudinal BCCE curriculum; pass-grade criteria for image-acquisition and image-interpretation; and formative/summative assessment and final competence processes. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Between April 2020 and May 2021, a total of 21 BCCE experts participated in four rounds. Rounds 1 and 2 used five web-based questionnaires, including branching-logic software for directed questions to individual panelists. In round 3 (videoconference), the panel finalized the recommendations by vote. During the journal peer-review process, Round 4 was conducted as Web-based questionnaires. Following each round, the agreement threshold for each item was determined as ≥ 80% for item inclusion and ≤ 30% for item exclusion. RESULTS: Following rounds 1 and 2, agreement was reached on 62 of 114 items. To the 49 unresolved items, 12 additional items were added in round 3, with 56 reaching agreement and five items remaining unresolved. There was agreement that longitudinal BCCE training must include introductory training, mentored formative training, summative assessment for competence, and final cognitive assessment. Items requiring multiple rounds included two-dimensional views, Doppler, cardiac output, M-mode measurement, minimum scan numbers, and pass-grade criteria. Regarding objective criteria for image-acquisition and image-interpretation quality, the panel agreed on maintaining the same criteria for formative and summative assessment, to categorize BCCE findings as major vs minor and a standardized approach to errors, criteria for readiness for summative assessment, and supervisory options. INTERPRETATION: In conclusion, this expert consensus statement presents comprehensive evidence-based recommendations on longitudinal BCCE training. However, these recommendations require prospective validation.

Criteria, Processes and Determination of Competence in Basic Critical Care Echocardiography Training - a Delphi Process Consensus Statement by the Learning Ultrasound in Critical Care (LUCC) Initiative

With the paucity of high-quality studies on longitudinal basic critical care echocardiography (BCCE) training, expert-opinion guidelines have guided BCCE training. However, existing guidelines lack precise detail due to methodological flaws during guideline-development. To formulate methodologically robust guidelines on BCCE training using evidence and expert opinion, detailing specific criteria for every step, we conducted a modified Delphi process using the principles of the validated AGREE-II tool. Based on systematic reviews, the following domains were chosen ­ components of a longitudinal BCCE curriculum; pass-grade criteria for image-acquisition and image-interpretation; formative/summative assessment and final competence processes. Between April 2020 and May 2021, 21 BCCE experts participated in four rounds. Rounds 1 and 2 used five web-based questionnaires, including branching-logic software for directed questions to individual panelists. In round 3 (videoconference), the panel finalized the recommendations by vote. During the journal peer-review process, Round 4 was conducted as web-based questionnaires. After each round, the agreement threshold for each item was determined >80% for item-inclusion and <30% for item-exclusion. After rounds 1 and 2, agreement was reached on 62/114 item. To the 49 unresolved items, 12 additional items were added in round 3, with 56 reaching agreement and five items remaining unresolved. There was agreement that longitudinal BCCE training must include introductory training, mentored formative training, summative assessment for competence and final cognitive assessment. Items requiring multiple rounds included 2D views, Doppler, cardiac output, M-mode measurement, minimum scan numbers, pass-grade criteria. Regarding objective criteria for image-acquisition and image-interpretation quality, the panel agreed on maintaining the same criteria for formative and summative assessment, to categorize BCCE findings as major versus minor and a standardized approach to errors, criteria for readiness for summative assessment and supervisory options. In conclusion, this expert consensus statement presents comprehensive evidence-based recommendations on longitudinal BCCE training. However, they require prospective validation.

Methodologic Quality of Guidelines for Training or Competence Processes for Basic Point-of-Care Echocardiography in Critical Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: The formulation of expert opinion guidelines has several sources of bias that may adversely affect their quality. To minimize bias, guideline creators must use rigorous methodology. There has been no appraisal of the methodologic quality of basic critical care echocardiography (BCCE) training/education guidelines. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the methodologic quality of expert guidelines/recommendations on BCCE training? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The review was performed by a multidisciplinary team including intensive care specialists, a hospital scientist, a trainee, a nurse sonographer, and a public health expert. Four databases (PubMed, OVID-Embase, Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched on July 31, 2020, to identify guidelines on BCCE training/education. Every guideline was assessed subjectively for the degree of detail of the recommendations and assessed objectively by using the AGREE-II critical appraisal tool for clinical practice guidelines to generate a scaled domain score. A score ≥ 75% in every domain was the cut off for guidelines to be used without modifications. RESULTS: From 4,288 abstracts screened, 24 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. Very few guidelines made clear recommendations regarding introductory courses: physics (n = 6 [25%]), instrumentation (n = 5 [20.8%]), image acquisition theory (n = 6 [25%]), course curriculum (n = 5 [[20.8%]), pre-course/post-course tests (n = 1 [4.2%]), minimum course duration (n = 6 [25%]), or trainer qualifications (n = 5 [20.8%]). Very few provided clear recommendations for longitudinal competence programs: clinically indicated scans (n = 8 [33.3%]), logbook (n = 14 [58.3%]), image storage (n = 9 [37.5%]), formative assessment (n = 6 [25%]), minimum scan numbers (n = 14 [58.3%]), image acquisition competence (n = 3 [12.5%]), image interpretation competence (n = 2 [8.3%]), and credentialing/certification (n = 3 [12.5%]). Five guidelines (20.8%) attained a scaled overall AGREE-II score ≥ 75%. One guideline (4.2%) attained scores ≥ 75% in every domain. INTERPRETATION: The methodologic appraisal of BCCE-training guidelines showed widespread deficiencies in guideline formulation processes. The impact of these deficiencies on the validity of the recommendations requires further evaluation in longitudinal studies.

Evaluating the influence of data collector training for predictive risk of death models: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Severity-of-illness scoring systems are widely used for quality assurance and research. Although validated by trained data collectors, there is little data on the accuracy of real-world data collection practices. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of formal data collection training on the accuracy of scoring system data in intensive care units (ICUs). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Quality assurance audit conducted using survey methodology principles. Between June and December 2018, an electronic document with details of three fictitious ICU patients was emailed to staff from 19 Australian ICUs who voluntarily submitted data on a web-based data entry form. Their entries were used to generate severity-of-illness scores and risks of death (RoDs) for four scoring systems. The primary outcome was the variation of severity-of-illness scores and RoDs from a reference standard. RESULTS: 50/83 staff (60.3%) submitted data. Using Bayesian multilevel analysis, severity-of-illness scores and RoDs were found to be significantly higher for untrained staff. The mean (95% high-density interval) overestimation in RoD due to training effect for patients 1, 2 and 3, respectively, were 0.24 (0.16, 0.31), 0.19 (0.09, 0.29) and 0.24 (0.1, 0.38) respectively (Bayesian factor >300, decisive evidence). Both groups (trained and untrained) had wide coefficients of variation up to 38.1%, indicating wide variability. Untrained staff made more errors in interpreting scoring system definitions. INTERPRETATION: In a fictitious patient dataset, data collection staff without formal training significantly overestimated the severity-of-illness scores and RoDs compared with trained staff. Both groups exhibited wide variability. Strategies to improve practice may include providing adequate training for all data collection staff, refresher training for previously trained staff and auditing the raw data submitted by individual ICUs. The results of this simulated study need revalidation on real patients.

Personal protective equipment preparedness in Asia-Pacific intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A multinational survey.

BACKGROUND: There has been a surge in coronavirus disease 2019 admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) in Asia-Pacific countries. Because ICU healthcare workers are exposed to aerosol-generating procedures, ensuring optimal personal protective equipment (PPE) preparedness is important. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate PPE preparedness across ICUs in six Asia-Pacific countries during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which is defined by the World Health Organization as guideline adherence, training healthcare workers, procuring stocks, and responding appropriately to suspected cases. METHODS: A cross-sectional Web-based survey was circulated to 633 level II/III ICUs of Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Singapore, Hong Kong (HK), India, and the Philippines. FINDINGS: Two hundred sixty-three intensivists responded, representing 231 individual ICUs eligible for analysis. Response rates were 68-100% in all countries except India, where it was 24%. Ninety-seven percent of ICUs either conformed to or exceeded World Health Organization recommendations for PPE practice. Fifty-nine percent ICUs used airborne precautions irrespective of aerosol generation procedures. There were variations in negative-pressure room use (highest in HK/Singapore), training (best in NZ), and PPE stock awareness (best in HK/Singapore/NZ). High-flow nasal oxygenation and noninvasive ventilation were not options in most HK (66.7% and 83.3%, respectively) and Singapore ICUs (50% and 80%, respectively), but were considered in other countries to a greater extent. Thirty-eight percent ICUs reported not having specialised airway teams. Showering and "buddy systems" were underused. Clinical waste disposal training was suboptimal (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Many ICUs in the Asia-Pacific reported suboptimal PPE preparedness in several domains, particularly related to PPE training, practice, and stock awareness, which requires remediation. Adoption of low-cost approaches such as buddy systems should be encouraged. The complete avoidance of high-flow nasal oxygenation reported by several intensivists needs reconsideration. Consideration must be given to standardise PPE guidelines to minimise practice variations. Urgent research to evaluate PPE preparedness and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission is required.

Noninvasive Oxygen Strategies to Manage Confirmed COVID-19 Patients in Indian Intensive Care Units: A Survey.

BACKGROUND: About 5% of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients will need intensive care unit (ICU) admission for hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring oxygen support. The choice between early mechanical ventilation and noninvasive oxygen therapies, such as, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and/or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) has to balance the contradictory priorities of protecting healthcare workers by minimizing aerosol-generation and optimizing resource management. This survey over two timeframes aimed to explore the controversial issue of location and noninvasive oxygen therapy in non-intubated ICU patients using a clinical vignette. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was designed, piloted, and distributed electronically to Indian intensivists/anesthetists, from private hospitals, government hospitals, and medical college hospitals (the latter two referred to as first-responder hospitals), who are directly responsible for admitting/managing patients in ICU. RESULTS: Of the 204 responses (125/481 in phase 1 and 79/320 in phase 2), 183 responses were included. Respondents from first-responder hospitals were more willing to manage non-intubated hypoxemic patients in neutral pressure rooms, while respondents from private hospitals preferred negative-pressure rooms (p < 0.001). In both the phases, private hospital doctors were less comfortable to use any form of noninvasive oxygen therapies in neutral-pressure rooms compared to first-responder hospitals (low-flow oxygen therapy: 72 vs 50%, p < 0.01; HFNO: 47 vs 24%, p < 0.01 and NPPV: 38 vs 28%, p = 0.20). INTERPRETATION: Variations existed in practices among first-responder and private intensivists/anesthetists. The resource optimal private hospital intensivists/anesthetists were less comfortable using noninvasive oxygen therapies in managing COVID-19 patients. This may reflect differential resource availability necessitating resolution at national, state, and local levels. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Subramaniam A, Haji JY, Kumar P, Ramanathan K, Rajamani A. Noninvasive Oxygen Strategies to Manage Confirmed COVID-19 Patients in Indian Intensive Care Units: A Survey. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(10):926-931.

State of Personal Protective Equipment Practice in Indian Intensive Care Units amidst COVID-19 Pandemic: A Nationwide Survey.

BACKGROUND: Optimal personal protective equipment (PPE) preparedness is key to minimize healthcare workers (HCW) infection with COVID-19. This two-phase survey evaluated PPE preparedness (adherence to Ministry of Health India (MoH) PPE-recommendations; HCW-training; PPE-inventory; PPE-breach management) in Indian intensive care units (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The phase 1 survey was distributed electronically to intensivists from 481 Indian hospitals between March 25, 2020, and April 06, 2020, as part of a multinational survey. Phase 2 was repeated in 320 Indian hospitals between April 20, 2020, and April 30, 2020. RESULTS: Response rate was 25% from 22 states. PPE practice varied between states and between private, government, and medical colleges. Between phase 1 and phase 2, all aspects of PPE training improved: donning/doffing 43% vs 66%, respectively; p value <0.01); safe waste disposal practices (38% vs 52%; p value = 0.09); intubation training (18% vs 31%; p value = 0.05); and transport (18% vs 31%; p value = 0.05). Perception of confidence for adequate PPE-training improved from 39 to 53% (p value = 0.26). In all, 47 to 60% ICUs adhered to MoH recommendations. Wearing N95-masks at all times increased from 47 to 60% (p value = 0.89). Very few ICUs provided quantitative/qualitative N95 masks fit testing (12% vs 29%; p value <0.01). Low-cost practices like "buddy-system" for donning-doffing (27% vs 44%; p value = 0.02) and showering after PPE breach (10% vs 8%; p value = 0.63) were underutilized. There was reluctance to PPE reuse. In all, 71% were unaware/diffident about PPE inventory. CONCLUSION: Despite interstate variability, most ICUs conformed to MoH recommendations. This survey conducted during initial pandemic phase demonstrated improved PPE preparedness uniformly across India with scope for further improvement. We suggest implementation of quality improvement measures to improve pandemic preparedness and minimize HCW infection rates, focused on regular PPE training, buddy system, and PPE-breach management. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Haji JY, Subramaniam A, Kumar P, Ramanathan K, Rajamani A. State of Personal Protective Equipment Practice in Indian Intensive Care Units amidst COVID-19 Pandemic: A Nationwide Survey. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(9):809-816.

Basic echocardiography competence program in intensive care units: A multinational survey of intensive care units accredited by the College of Intensive Care Medicine.

In 2014, basic critical care echocardiography (BCCE) competence became a mandatory requirement for trainees registered with the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM). To determine the proportion of CICM intensive care units (ICUs) that conduct a BCCE competence program and to learn about the barriers/challenges and successful strategies, we conducted a survey of intensivists working in ICUs accredited by CICM for basic/advanced training in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland and India. Following consultations with content experts and a trial phase to improve clarity and minimise ambiguity, an 11-point questionnaire survey was sent to one intensivist from every CICM-accredited ICU by several methods. Participation was voluntary. Consent was implied. No incentives were offered. Results are reported as numbers and percentages. Of the 104 ICUs surveyed, 99 (95.1%) responded, with 75 (75.8%) having no BCCE teaching whatsoever. In the remaining 24 (24.2%) ICUs, the teaching process was widely variable. Only 5/99 (5.1%) ICUs provided a structured BCCE competence program through which trainees performed and archived BCCE scans, maintained a logbook and underwent formative and summative assessments for credentialling. Six more ICUs provided formative assessment but relied on external bodies for competence assessment. Overall, 20/99 (20.2%) ICUs allowed trainees to perform unsupervised scans for clinical management, even if they were not BCCE competent. Nineteen intensivists perceived management errors due to misinterpretation of echocardiographic findings. Very few CICM-accredited ICUs offer a structured BCCE competence program. To fulfil the objective of universal BCCE competence, potential solutions are presented.

Longitudinal Competence Programs for Basic Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Critical Care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Competence in point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) is widely recommended by several critical care societies. Despite numerous introductory short courses, very few doctors attain PoCUS competence because of the challenges in establishing longitudinal competence programs. RESEARCH QUESTION: To evaluate the methodologic quality of the literature on basic PoCUS competence processes in critical care. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review to identify manuscripts meeting predefined inclusion criteria was performed using three medical databases (PubMed, OVID Embase, and Web of Science); using extra references from original articles, review articles, and expert panel guidelines; and by directly contacting authors for further information if required. The objectives, domains, and inclusion and exclusion criteria of the review were determined during discussions between experienced PoCUS educators. Data extraction and analyses were performed independently by three reviewers. RESULTS: Of the 5,408 abstracts extracted, 42 met the inclusion criteria for longitudinal PoCUS competence. Each study was described along four broad categories: general information, study design, and trainee characteristics; description of introductory course; description of longitudinal competence program; and grading of overall methodologic quality on a 4-point Likert scale. Thirty-nine studies (92.9%) were from a single center. Most studies lacked important details on study methodology such as prior ultrasound experience, pre- and postcourse tests, models for hands-on sessions, ratio of instructors to trainees, competence assessment criteria, number of scans performed by individual trainees, and formative and summative assessments. The studies were rated as follows: poor = 19 (45.2%), average = 15 (35.7%), good = 4 (9.5%), and excellent = 4 (9.5%). INTERPRETATION: Ther is very little high-quality evidence on PoCUS competence. To help frame policy guidelines to improve PoCUS education, there is a need for well-designed longitudinal studies on PoCUS competence. TRIAL REGISTRY: PROSPERO database; No.: CRD42018094033; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.

Impact of Critical Care Point-of-Care Ultrasound Short-Courses on Trainee Competence.

OBJECTIVES: Competence in point-of-care ultrasound is recommended/mandated by several critical care specialties. Although doctors commonly attend point-of-care ultrasound short-courses for introductory training, there is little follow-up data on whether they eventually attain competence. This study was done to determine the impact of point-of-care ultrasound short-courses on point-of-care ultrasound competence. DESIGN: Web-based survey. SETTING: Follow-up after point-of-care ultrasound short-courses in the Asia-Pacific region. SUBJECTS: Doctors who attended a point-of-care ultrasound short-course between December 2015 and February 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Each subject was emailed a questionnaire on or after 6 months following their short-course. They were asked if they had performed at least 30 structured point-of-care ultrasound scans and/or reached point-of-care ultrasound competence and their perceived reasons/challenges/barriers. They were also asked if they used point-of-care ultrasound as a clinical diagnostic aid. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The response rate was 74.9% (182/243). Among the 182 respondents, only 12 (6.6%) had attained competence in their chosen point-of-care ultrasound modality, attributing their success to self-motivation and time management. For the remaining doctors who did not attain competence (170/182, 93.4%), the common reasons were lack of time, change of priorities, and less commonly, difficulties in accessing an ultrasound machine/supervisor. Common suggestions to improve short-courses included requests for scanning practice on acutely ill ICU patients and prior information on the challenges regarding point-of-care ultrasound competence. Suggestions to improve competence pathways included regular supervision and protected learning time. All 12 credentialled doctors regularly used point-of-care ultrasound as a clinical diagnostic aid. Of the 170 noncredentialled doctors, 123 (72.4%) reported performing unsupervised point-of-care ultrasound for clinical management, either sporadically (42/170, 24.7%) or regularly (81/170, 47.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In this survey of doctors attending point-of-care ultrasound short-courses in Australasia, the majority of doctors did not attain competence. However, the practice of unsupervised point-of-care ultrasound use by noncredentialled doctors was common. Further research into effective strategies to improve point-of-care ultrasound competence is required.