Causes of Emergency Department Overcrowding and Blockage of Access to Critical Services in Beijing: A 2-Year Study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) overcrowding is a serious issue worldwide. OBJECTIVES: This study was done to evaluate the degree of overcrowding in local "teaching hospitals" in Beijing, and to ascertain the apparent root causes for the pervasive degree of overcrowding in these EDs. METHODS: This is a multicenter cross-sectional study. The studied population included all ED patients from 18 metropolitan teaching hospital EDs in Beijing for calendar years 2013 and 2014. Patient characteristics, and the primary reasons that these patients sought care in these EDs, are described. RESULTS: The total numbers of annual emergency visits were 1,554,387 and 1,615,571 in 2013 and 2014, respectively. High acuity cases accounted for 4.6% and 5.5% of the total annual emergency visits in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The percentage of patients placed into "Observation" beds, which were created to accommodate patients deemed to have problems too complex to be treated in an inpatient bed, or to accommodate patients simply needing chronic care, was 11.9% and 13.1% in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The ED-boarded patients accounted for 2.71% and 2.6% of the total annual emergency visits in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The average waiting time to admit the ED-boarded patients was 37.1 h and 36.2 h in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Respiratory symptoms were the most common presenting complaints, and an upper respiratory infection was the most common ED diagnosis. Patients who had pneumonia or various manifestations of end-stage diseases, such as advanced dementia or multiple organ dysfunction, were the most common characteristics of patients who had stays in "Observation" units. CONCLUSIONS: One principal reason for ED crowding in Beijing lies in the large numbers of patients who persist in the expectation of receiving ongoing care in the ED for minor illnesses. However, as is true in many nations, one of the other most important root causes of ED crowding is "access block," the inability to promptly move patients deemed by emergency physicians to need inpatient care to an inpatient bed for that care. However, in our system, another challenge, not widely described as a contributor to crowding in other nations, is that doctors assigned to inpatient services have been empowered to refuse to admit patients perceived to have overly "complex" needs. Further, patients with multisystem illnesses or end-stage status, who need ongoing chronic care to manage activities of daily living, have begun to populate Beijing EDs in increasing numbers. This is an issue with various root causes.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012". DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy wasdeveloped at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroupsand among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.(AU)

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

Objective: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. Design: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. Methods: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. Results: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7­9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO 2/FiO 2 ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO 2/FI O 2<150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5­10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). Conclusions: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Impact of sepsis bundle strategy on outcomes of patients suffering from severe sepsis and septic shock in china.

BACKGROUND: It is well known that poor sepsis outcomes are related to delays in diagnosis and treatment. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the mortality rate between two groups of patients, one group presenting before and one group presenting after implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) sepsis performance improvement bundles in the Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: This was a prospective study. The studied population included severe sepsis and septic shock patients entered in the SSC database who were admitted to the ED between June 2008 and December 2009. Patients were divided into two groups based on when they presented to the ED. Key treatment interventions, admission to the intensive care unit, and in-hospital mortality were compared. In addition, a survey was completed by the treating physicians to identify reasons for failures to comply with indicators. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five (195) patients with severe sepsis and septic shock were enrolled in the study. Mortality was significantly higher at 44.8% in the baseline group (Group 1) compared to 31.6% in the group studied after the SSC protocol was instituted (Group 2) (p < 0.05). Compliance with all elements of the sepsis resuscitation bundle was 1% in Group 1 and 9% in Group 2 (p < 0.05). Compliance with all elements of the management bundle was 1% in Group 1 and 12.8% in Group 2. The most frequently reported reasons by physicians for failure to comply with the bundles were: "did not think it was needed" and "unsure of reason." CONCLUSION: The results revealed a significant drop in mortality after implementing the SSC protocol and sepsis performance improvement bundles in the ED. The barriers to implementing sepsis guidelines are knowledge, attitude, and behavioral barriers.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) <150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

History of technology in the intensive care unit.

Critical care medicine is a young specialty and since its inception has been heavily reliant upon technology. Invasive monitoring has its humble beginnings in the continuous monitoring of heart rate and rhythm. From the development of right heart catheterization to the adaption of the echocardiogram for use in shock, intensivists have used technology to monitor hemodynamics. The care of the critically ill has been buoyed by investigators who sought to offer renal replacement therapy to unstable patients and worked to improve the monitoring of oxygen saturation. The evolution of mechanical ventilation for the critically ill embodies innumerable technological advances. More recently, critical care has insisted upon rigorous testing and cost-benefit analysis of technological advances.

Image-based monitoring of one-lung ventilation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: With the increasing demand for one-lung ventilation in both thoracic surgery and other procedures, identifying the correct placement becomes increasingly important. Currently, endobronchial intubation is suspected based on a combination of auscultation and physiological findings. We investigated the ability of the visual display of airflow-induced vibrations to detect single-lung ventilation with a double-lumen endotracheal tube. METHODS: Double-lumen tubes were placed prior to surgery. Tracheal and endobronchial lumens were alternately clamped to produce unilateral lung ventilation of right and left lung. Vibration response imaging, which detects vibrations transmitted to the surface of the thorax, was performed during both right- and left-lung ventilation. Geographical area of vibration response image as well as amount and distribution of lung sounds were assessed. RESULTS: During single-lung ventilation, the image and video obtained from the vibration response imaging identifies the ventilated lung with a larger and darker image on the ventilated side. During single-lung ventilation, 87.2 +/- 5.7% of the measured vibrations was detected over the ventilated lung and 12.8 +/- 5.7% over the non-ventilated lung (P < 0.0001). It was also noted that during single-lung ventilation, the vibration distribution in the non-ventilated lung had a majority of vibration detected by the medial sensors closest to the midline (P < 0.05) as opposed to the midclavicular sensors when the lung is ventilated. CONCLUSIONS: During single-lung ventilation, vibration response imaging clearly showed increased vibration in the lung that is being ventilated. Distribution of residual vibration differed in the non-ventilated lung in a manner that suggests transmission of vibrations across the mediastinum from the ventilated lung. The lung image and video obtained from vibration response imaging may provide useful and immediate information to help one-lung ventilation assessment.

Innovative therapies for sepsis.

Sepsis and septic shock continue to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Despite numerous advances in the supportive care of patients with sepsis, the overall mortality has changed little in the past 20 years. Many innovative therapies have been attempted in the field of sepsis, primarily aimed at stopping the cycle of cytokine activation which is part of the systemic inflammatory response. Therapies have also targeted other molecular mediators of inflammation and coagulation. Despite encouraging preliminary preclinical results, most of the early trials in sepsis research have failed to offer hope of improving survival with the use of these innovative therapies. Postulated reasons for the failure of clinical trials include the disparity between animal models and clinical reality, the heterogeneous nature of patient populations and sepsis, and the complexity of the inflammatory cascade. On a more hopeful note, three recent trials assessing corticosteroids, anti-tumour necrosis factor strategy and drotrecogin alfa (rhAPC), respectively, have proclaimed positive results. However, only the drotrecogin alfa trial has been peer reviewed and published.

Other supportive therapies in sepsis.

Patients who survive the circulatory and organ deficits in sepsis may still fall victim to complications such as pulmonary embolism and stress ulcer bleeding. Although there is no clearcut evidence to quantitate the impact of such complications on mortality, the anticipated impact is grave when considering the compromised physiological reserve of these patients. For this reason it is important to institute effective prophylaxis to minimize the impact. In addition, catabolism associated with sepsis likely influences the recovery of patients with sepsis and moreover can compromise the response of the immune system against an infectious insult. Early and adequate nutritional support therefore appears important. There is much controversy and lack of prospective research regarding effect of supportive therapies on outcome in patients with severe sepsis. This research is needed.

Noncardiac surgery: postoperative arrhythmias.

Postoperative arrhythmias are common and represent a major source of morbidity after both cardiac and noncardiac surgical procedures. Postoperative dysrhythmias are most likely to occur in patients with structural heart disease. The initiating factor for an arrhythmia in a given patient after surgery is usually a transient insult, such as hypoxemia, cardiac ischemia, catecholamine excess, or electrolyte abnormality. Management includes correction of these imbalances and medical therapy directed at the arrhythmia itself. The physiologic impact of arrhythmias depends on arrhythmia duration, ventricular response rate, and underlying cardiac function. Similarly, urgency and type of treatment is determined by the physiologic impact of the arrhythmia, as well as by underlying clinical status. The purpose of this review is to provide current concepts of diagnosis and acute management of arrhythmias after noncardiac surgery. A systematic approach to arrhythmia diagnosis and evaluation of predisposing factors is presented, followed by consideration of specific bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias in the postoperative setting.

Phase I trial of the recombinant soluble complement receptor 1 in acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety, pharmacokinetics, biological effects, and immunogenicity of recombinant soluble complement receptor 1 (TP10) in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Open label, ascending dosage, phase I trial. SETTING: Two academic teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 24 patients diagnosed with ALI/ARDS. INTERVENTION: A single, 30-min intravenous infusion of 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg TP10. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Serum levels of TP10 increased in proportion to the dose. Mean variable estimates (+/-SD) were half-life of disposition 69.7 +/- 39.7 hrs, plasma clearance 2.39 +/- 1.32 mL/hr/kg, and volume of distribution 190.6 +/- 135.0 mL/kg. Inhibition of complement activity, measured by CH50, was significant for the interaction of dose and time (p = .024). The C3a levels demonstrated a trend for dose which did not reach statistical significance (p = .090) and soluble C5b-9 levels were significant only for dose (p = .023). As expected by the proposed physiologic mechanism, C4a levels were not affected by TP10, dose, or time. The overall mortality rate was 33%. Neither the type nor the frequency rate of specific adverse events were substantially different between dose groups. Seven adverse events in four patients were thought to be possibly related to TP10. CONCLUSIONS: TP10 has a half-life of approximately 70 hrs and at doses > or =1 mg/kg, significantly inhibits complement activity at the levels of C3 and C5 in patients with ALI/ARDS. Complement inhibition was more prolonged over time with TP10 doses of 3 and 10 mg/kg. TP10 appears to be safe at the doses tested. Further studies will be required to completely assess the impact of TP10 on pathophysiology and clinical outcome in patients with ALI/ARDS.

Pharmacologic issues in the management of septic shock.

Despite our increased understanding of the biochemistry and physiology of sepsis, the treatment of septic shock remains a challenge. Initial management of septic shock entails urgent and emergent stabilization of the patient followed by broad-spectrum, empiric antibiotic therapy. After volume resuscitation, vasopressors or inotropic therapy or both may be necessary to restore perfusion. Adjunctive therapies and monitoring strategies may be helpful in preventing complications in the intensive care setting. Additional research and clinical trials are needed to identify supportive interventions that may affect the outcome of the septic patient.