Patterns of interactions among ICU interprofessional teams: A prospective patient-shift-level survey approach.

BACKGROUND: The Awakening, Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring and Early mobility bundle (ABCDE) is associated with lower mortality for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, efforts to improve ABCDE are variably successful, possibly due to lack of clarity about who are the team members interacting when caring for each patient, each shift. Lack of patient shift-level information regarding who is interacting with whom limits the ability to tailor interventions to the specific ICU team to improve ABCDE. OBJECTIVE: Determine the number and types of individuals (i.e., clinicians and family members) interacting in the care of mechanically ventilated (MV) patients, as reported by the patients' assigned physician, nurse, and respiratory therapist (RT) each shift, using a network science lens. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, patient-shift-level survey in 2 medical ICUs. For each patient, we surveyed the assigned physician, nurse, and RT each day and night shift about who they interacted with when providing ABCDE for each patient-shift. We determined the number and types of interactions, reported by physicians, nurses, and RTs and day versus night shift. RESULTS: From 1558 surveys from 404 clinicians who cared for 169 patients over 166 shifts (65% response rate), clinicians reported interacting with 2.6 individuals each shift (physicians: 2.65, nurses: 3.33, RTs: 1.86); this was fewer on night shift compared to day shift (1.99 versus 3.02). Most frequent interactions were with the bedside nurse, attending, resident, intern, and RT; family member interactions were reported in less than 1 in 5 surveys (12.2% of physician surveys, 19.7% of nurse surveys, 4.9% of RT surveys). INTERPRETATION: Clinicians reported interacting with 3-4 clinicians each shift, and fewer on nights. Nurses interacted with the most clincians and family members. Interventions targeting shift-level teams, focusing on nurses and family members, may be a way to improve ABCDE delivery and ICU teamwork.

Shift-Level Team Familiarity Is Associated with Improved Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated Adults.

RATIONALE: Organizing intensive care unit (ICU) interprofessional teams is a high priority due to workforce needs, but the role of interprofessional familiarity remains unexplored. OBJECTIVE: Determine if mechanically ventilated patients cared for by teams with greater familiarity have improved outcomes, such as lower mortality, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), and greater spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) implementation. METHODS: We used electronic health records data of 5 ICUs in an academic medical center to map interprofessional teams and their ICU networks, measuring team familiarity as network coreness and mean team value. We used patient-level regression models to link team familiarity with patient outcomes, accounting for patient/unit factors. We also performed a split-sample analysis by using 2018 team familiarity data to predict 2019 outcomes. MEASUREMENTS: Team familiarity was measured as the average number of patients shared by each clinician with all other clinicians in the ICU (i.e., coreness) and the average number of patients shared by any two members of the team (i.e., mean team value). MAIN RESULTS: Among 4,485 encounters, unadjusted mortality was 12.9%, average duration of MV was 2.32 days and SBT implementation was 89%; average team coreness was 467.2 (SD = 96.15) and average mean team value was 87.02 (SD=42.42). A standard-deviation increase in team coreness was significantly associated with a 4.5% greater probability of SBT implementation, 23% shorter MV duration, and 3.8% lower probability of dying; mean team value was significantly associated with lower mortality. Split-sample results were attenuated but congruent in direction and interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Interprofessional familiarity was associated with improved outcomes; assignment models that prioritize familiarity might be a novel solution.

Extubation of Patients Receiving Vasopressor Infusions: Results of a Survey on Statewide Practices.

Current guidelines recommend extubation only if a patient is not receiving vasopressor therapy or is receiving minimal doses of vasopressors. However, recent data indicate that extubation of patients receiving higher vasopressor doses may be safe. This study was undertaken to examine practices regarding extubation of patients receiving vasopressor therapy reported by clinician respondents to a survey by the Michigan Health and Hospital Association Keystone Center. One-third of respondents indicated that they would extubate a patient receiving vasopressors, and one-quarter indicated that it depended on the agent used, but more than half reported that their unit did not have a vasopressor use protocol or they did not know whether it did. Practices regarding extubation of patients receiving vasopressor therapy differed significantly by unit type and by role as a direct care provider. These data indicate that patient and clinician factors may drive practice patterns. Additional research to inform guidelines and local protocols is warranted.

Prevention of radiation-induced bone pathology through combined pharmacologic cytoprotection and angiogenic stimulation.

Pathologic fractures and associated non-unions arising in previously irradiated bone are severely debilitating diseases. Although radiation is known to have deleterious effects on healthy tissue cellularity and vascularity, no clinically accepted pharmacologic interventions currently exist to target these destructive mechanisms within osseous tissues. We utilized amifostine-a cellular radioprotectant-and deferoxamine-an angiogenic stimulant-to simultaneously target the cellular and vascular niches within irradiated bone in a rat model of mandibular fracture repair following irradiation. Rats treated with combined therapy were compared to those undergoing treatment with singular amifostine or deferoxamine therapy, nontreated/irradiated animals (XFx) and non-treated/non-irradiated animals (Fx). 3D angiographic modeling, histology, Bone Mineral Density Distribution and mechanical metrics were utilized to assess therapeutic efficacy. We observed diminished metrics for all outcomes when comparing XFx to Fx alone, indicating the damaging effects of radiation. Across all outcomes, only the combined treatment group improved upon XFx levels, normalized all metrics to Fx levels, and was consistently as good as, or superior to the other treatment options (p<0.05). Collectively, our data demonstrate that pharmacologically targeting the cellular and vascular environments within irradiated bone prevents bone injury and enhances fracture healing.