A multisite exploration of the association between critical care implementation factors and clinical outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Little is known about strategies to implement new critical care practices in response to COVID-19. Moreover, the association between differing implementation climates and COVID-19 clinical outcomes has not been examined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between implementation determinants and COVID-19 mortality rates. Methods: We used mixed methods guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with critical care leaders and analyzed to rate the influence of CFIR constructs on the implementation of new care practices. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of CFIR construct ratings were performed between hospital groups with low- versus high-mortality rates. Results: We found associations between various implementation factors and clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Three CFIR constructs (implementation climate, leadership engagement, and engaging staff) had both qualitative and statistically significant quantitative correlations with mortality outcomes. An implementation climate governed by a trial-and-error approach was correlated with high COVID-19 mortality, while leadership engagement and engaging staff were correlated with low mortality. Another three constructs (needs of patient; organizational incentives and rewards; and engaging implementation leaders) were qualitatively different across mortality outcome groups, but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Improving clinical outcomes during future public health emergencies will require reducing identified barriers associated with high mortality and harnessing salient facilitators associated with low mortality. Our findings suggest that collaborative and engaged leadership styles that promote the integration of new yet evidence-based critical care practices best support COVID-19 patients and contribute to lower mortality.

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of new critical care practices during COVID-19: a multicenter qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes. RESULTS: Among the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles. CONCLUSIONS: Through applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.

Choosing Wisely For Critical Care: The Next Five.

OBJECTIVES: To formulate new "Choosing Wisely" for Critical Care recommendations that identify best practices to avoid waste and promote value while providing critical care. DATA SOURCES: Semistructured narrative literature review and quantitative survey assessments. STUDY SELECTION: English language publications that examined critical care practices in relation to reducing cost or waste. DATA EXTRACTION: Practices assessed to add no value to critical care were grouped by category. Taskforce assessment, modified Delphi consensus building, and quantitative survey analysis identified eight novel recommendations to avoid wasteful critical care practices. These were submitted to the Society of Critical Care Medicine membership for evaluation and ranking. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results from the quantitative Society of Critical Care Medicine membership survey identified the top scoring five of eight recommendations. These five highest ranked recommendations established Society of Critical Care Medicine's Next Five "Choosing" Wisely for Critical Care practices. CONCLUSIONS: Five new recommendations to reduce waste and enhance value in the practice of critical care address invasive devices, proactive liberation from mechanical ventilation, antibiotic stewardship, early mobilization, and providing goal-concordant care. These recommendations supplement the initial critical care recommendations from the "Choosing Wisely" campaign.

Promoting Family Engagement in the ICU: Experience From a National Collaborative of 63 ICUs.

OBJECTIVES: As part of an improvement program targeting ICU, a national collaborative was launched to help hospitals implement patient- and family-centered care engagement initiatives. DESIGN: Ten-month quality improvement collaborative. SETTING: Guided by a national patient and family advisory group, participating teams implemented an individual project including open visitation; integrating families on rounds; establishing a patient and family advisory committee; using patient and family diaries, among others. SUBJECTS: Sixty-three adult and PICU teams from both academic and community hospitals in 34 states participated. INTERVENTIONS: Monthly team calls, quarterly webinars, newsletters, an online eCommunity, and team reporting assignments were used to facilitate project implementation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Family Satisfaction with Care in the ICU 24 was used to assess family satisfaction. Clinician perceptions were assessed with the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care Self-Assessment Inventory. Thematic analysis was used to explore narrative data captured from team reports of project barriers, facilitators, and the experience of participating in the collaborative. A total of 2,530 family member and 3,999 clinician surveys were completed. Postimplementation, family members reported statistically significant increases in overall family satisfaction, satisfaction with decision-making, and satisfaction with quality of care (Family Satisfaction with Care in the ICU mean score change range 0.83-1.24; p ≤ 0.027). Clinicians reported that opportunities for families to participate as members of the care team increased. Major barriers included lack of buy-in and ability to promote change in the clinical setting, managing the workload of implementation, and funding to support initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: A national collaborative format was useful to assist ICU teams to implement patient- and family-engagement initiatives. Enlisting stakeholder support, engaging unit-based champions, and highlighting benefits of family engagement can help ICU teams to promote family member involvement and engagement.

Executive Summary: Criteria for Critical Care of Infants and Children: PICU Admission, Discharge, and Triage Practice Statement and Levels of Care Guidance.

This is an executive summary of the 2019 update of the 2004 guidelines and levels of care for PICU. Since previous guidelines, there has been a tremendous transformation of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine with advancements in pediatric cardiovascular medicine, transplant, neurology, trauma, and oncology as well as improvements of care in general PICUs. This has led to the evolution of resources and training in the provision of care through the PICU. Outcome and quality research related to admission, transfer, and discharge criteria as well as literature regarding PICU levels of care to include volume, staffing, and structure were reviewed and included in this statement as appropriate. Consequently, the purposes of this significant update are to address the transformation of the field and codify a revised set of guidelines that will enable hospitals, institutions, and individuals in developing the appropriate PICU for their community needs. The target audiences of the practice statement and guidance are broad and include critical care professionals; pediatricians; pediatric subspecialists; pediatric surgeons; pediatric surgical subspecialists; pediatric imaging physicians; and other members of the patient care team such as nurses, therapists, dieticians, pharmacists, social workers, care coordinators, and hospital administrators who make daily administrative and clinical decisions in all PICU levels of care.

Criteria for Critical Care Infants and Children: PICU Admission, Discharge, and Triage Practice Statement and Levels of Care Guidance.

OBJECTIVES: To update the American Academy of Pediatrics and Society of Critical Care Medicine's 2004 Guidelines and levels of care for PICU. DESIGN: A task force was appointed by the American College of Critical Care Medicine to follow a standardized and systematic review of the literature using an evidence-based approach. The 2004 Admission, Discharge and Triage Guidelines served as the starting point, and searches in Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and PubMed resulted in 329 articles published from 2004 to 2016. Only 21 pediatric studies evaluating outcomes related to pediatric level of care, specialized PICU, patient volume, or personnel. Of these, 13 studies were large retrospective registry data analyses, six small single-center studies, and two multicenter survey analyses. Limited high-quality evidence was found, and therefore, a modified Delphi process was used. Liaisons from the American Academy of Pediatrics were included in the panel representing critical care, surgical, and hospital medicine expertise for the development of this practice guidance. The title was amended to "practice statement" and "guidance" because Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology was not possible in this administrative work and to align with requirements put forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics. METHODS: The panel consisted of two groups: a voting group and a writing group. The panel used an iterative collaborative approach to formulate statements on the basis of the literature review and common practice of the pediatric critical care bedside experts and administrators on the task force. Statements were then formulated and presented via an online anonymous voting tool to a voting group using a three-cycle interactive forecasting Delphi method. With each cycle of voting, statements were refined on the basis of votes received and on comments. Voting was conducted between the months of January 2017 and March 2017. The consensus was deemed achieved once 80% or higher scores from the voting group were recorded on any given statement or where there was consensus upon review of comments provided by voters. The Voting Panel was required to vote in all three forecasting events for the final evaluation of the data and inclusion in this work. The writing panel developed admission recommendations by level of care on the basis of voting results. RESULTS: The panel voted on 30 statements, five of which were multicomponent statements addressing characteristics specific to PICU level of care including team structure, technology, education and training, academic pursuits, and indications for transfer to tertiary or quaternary PICU. Of the remaining 25 statements, 17 reached consensus cutoff score. Following a review of the Delphi results and consensus, the recommendations were written. CONCLUSIONS: This practice statement and level of care guidance manuscript addresses important specifications for each PICU level of care, including the team structure and resources, technology and equipment, education and training, quality metrics, admission and discharge criteria, and indications for transfer to a higher level of care. The sparse high-quality evidence led the panel to use a modified Delphi process to seek expert opinion to develop consensus-based recommendations where gaps in the evidence exist. Despite this limitation, the members of the Task Force believe that these recommendations will provide guidance to practitioners in making informed decisions regarding pediatric admission or transfer to the appropriate level of care to achieve best outcomes.

Increasing Evidence-Based Interventions in Patients with Acute Infections in a Resource-Limited Setting: A Before-and-After Feasibility Trial in Gitwe, Rwanda.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a focused education program and implementation of a treatment bundle increases the rate of early evidence-based interventions in patients with acute infections. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective, before-and-after feasibility trial. SETTING: Emergency department of a sub-Saharan African district hospital. PATIENTS: Patients > 28 days of life admitted to the study hospital for an acute infection. INTERVENTIONS: The trial had three phases (each of four months). Interventions took place during the second (educational program followed by implementation of the treatment bundle) and third (provision of resources to implement treatment bundle) phases. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected at study enrollment; 24, 48, and 72 hours after hospital admission; and at discharge. A total of 1,594 patients were enrolled (pre-intervention, n = 661; intervention I, n = 531; intervention II, n = 402). The rate of early evidence-based interventions per patient during Intervention Phase I was greater than during the pre-intervention phase (74 ± 17 vs. 79 ± 15%, p < 0.001). No difference was detected when data were compared between Intervention Phases I and II (79 ± 15 vs. 80 ± 15%, p = 0.58). No differences in the incidence of blood transfusion (pre-intervention, 6%; intervention I, 7%; intervention II, 7%) or severe adverse events in the first 24 hours (allergic reactions: pre-intervention, 0.2%; intervention I, 0%; intervention II, 0%; respiratory failure: pre-intervention, 2%; intervention I, 2%; intervention II, 2%; acute renal failure: pre-intervention, 2%; intervention I, 2%; intervention II, 1%) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that a focused education program and implementation of an infection treatment bundle in clinical practice increased the rate of early evidence-based interventions in patients with acute infections (mostly malaria) admitted to a sub-Saharan African district hospital. Provision of material resources did not further increase this rate. While no safety issues were detected, this could be related to the very low disease severity of the enrolled patient population (www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02697513).

Increasing evidence-based interventions in patients with acute infections in a resource-limited setting: a before-and-after feasibility trial in Gitwe, Rwanda.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a focused education program and implementation of a treatment bundle increases the rate of early evidence-based interventions in patients with acute infections. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective, before-and-after feasibility trial. SETTING: Emergency department of a sub-Saharan African district hospital. PATIENTS: Patients > 28 days of life admitted to the study hospital for an acute infection. INTERVENTIONS: The trial had three phases (each of 4 months). Interventions took place during the second (educational program followed by implementation of the treatment bundle) and third (provision of resources to implement treatment bundle) phases. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected at study enrollment; 24, 48, and 72 h after hospital admission; and at discharge. A total of 1594 patients were enrolled (pre-intervention, n = 661; intervention I, n = 531; intervention II, n = 402). The rate of early evidence-based interventions per patient during Intervention Phase I was greater than during the pre-intervention phase (74 ± 17 vs. 79 ± 15%, p < 0.001). No difference was detected when data were compared between Intervention Phases I and II (79 ± 15 vs. 80 ± 15%, p = 0.58). No differences in the incidence of blood transfusion (pre-intervention, 6%; intervention I, 7%; intervention II, 7%) or severe adverse events in the first 24 h (allergic reactions: pre-intervention, 0.2%; intervention I, 0%; intervention II, 0%; respiratory failure: pre-intervention, 2%; intervention I, 2%; intervention II, 2%; acute renal failure: pre-intervention, 2%; intervention I, 2%; intervention II, 1%) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that a focused education program and implementation of an infection treatment bundle in clinical practice increased the rate of early evidence-based interventions in patients with acute infections (mostly malaria) admitted to a sub-Saharan African district hospital. Provision of material resources did not further increase this rate. While no safety issues were detected, this could be related to the very low disease severity of the enrolled patient population ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02697513).

Improving Health Care for Critically Ill Patients Using an Evidence-Based Collaborative Approach to ABCDEF Bundle Dissemination and Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) often experience pain, oversedation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, delirium, and weakness. These conditions are important in that they often lead to protracted physical, neurocognitive, and mental health sequelae now termed postintensive care syndrome. Changing current ICU practice will not only require the adoption of evidence-based interventions but the development of effective and reliable teams to support these new practices. OBJECTIVES: To build on the success of bundled care and bridge an ongoing evidence-practice gap, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) recently launched the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative. The Collaborative aimed to foster the bedside application of the SCCM's Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this paper is to describe the history of the Collaborative, the evidence-based implementation strategies used to foster change and teamwork, and the performance and outcome metrics used to monitor progress. METHODS: Collaborative participants were required to attend four in-person meetings, monthly colearning calls, database training sessions, an e-Community listserv, and select in-person site visits. Teams submitted patient-level data and completed pre- and postimplementation questionnaires focused on the assessment of teamwork and collaboration, work environment, and overall ICU care. Faculty shared the evidence used to derive each bundle element as well as team-based implementation strategies for improvement and sustainment. RESULTS: Retention in the Collaborative was high, with 67 of 69 adult and eight of nine pediatric ICUs fully completing the program. Baseline and prospective data were collected on over 17,000 critically ill patients. A variety of evidence-based professional behavioral change interventions and novel implementation techniques were utilized and shared among Collaborative members. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Hospitals and health systems can use the Collaborative structure, strategies, and tools described in this paper to help successfully implement the ABCDEF bundle in their ICUs.