How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A scoping review.

Healthcare hygiene plays a crucial role in the prevention of healthcare-associated infections. Patients admitted to a room where the previous occupant had a multi-drug-resistant bacterial infection are at an increased risk of colonization and infection with the same organism. A 2006 systematic review by Kramer et al. found that certain pathogens can survive for months on dry surfaces. The aim of this review is to update Kramer et al.'s previous review and provide contemporary data on the survival of pathogens relevant to the healthcare environment. We systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases for studies that described the survival time of common nosocomial pathogens in the environment. Pathogens included in the review were bacterial, viral, and fungal. Studies were independently screened against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria by two researchers. Conflicts were resolved by one of two senior researchers. A spreadsheet was developed for the data extraction. The search identified 1736 studies. Following removal of duplicates and application of the search criteria, the synthesis of results from 62 included studies were included. 117 organisms were reported. The longest surviving organism reported was Klebsiella pneumoniae which was found to have persisted for 600 days. Common pathogens of concern to infection prevention and control, can survive or persist on inanimate surfaces for months. This data supports the need for a risk-based approach to cleaning and disinfection practices, accompanied by appropriate training, audit and feedback which are proven to be effective when adopted in a 'bundle' approach.

Prevalence and commonality of non-technical skills and human factors in airway management guidelines: a narrative review of the last 5 years.

The primary aim of this review was to identify, analyse and codify the prominence and nature of human factors and ergonomics within difficult airway management algorithms. A directed search across OVID Medline and PubMed databases was performed. All articles were screened for relevance to the research aims and according to predetermined exclusion criteria. We identified 26 published airway management algorithms. A coding framework was iteratively developed identifying human factors and ergonomic specific words and phrases based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model. This framework was applied to the papers to delineate qualitative and quantitative results. Our results show that human factors are well represented within recent airway management guidelines. Human factors associated with work systems and processes featured more prominently than user and patient outcome measurement and adaption. Human factors are an evolving area in airway management and our results highlight that further considerations are necessary in further guideline development.

The aerosol box for intubation in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: an in-situ simulation crossover study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to the manufacturing of novel devices to protect clinicians from the risk of transmission, including the aerosol box for use during tracheal intubation. We evaluated the impact of two aerosol boxes (an early-generation box and a latest-generation box) on intubations in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 with an in-situ simulation crossover study. The simulated process complied with the Safe Airway Society coronavirus disease 2019 airway management guidelines. The primary outcome was intubation time; secondary outcomes included first-pass success and breaches to personal protective equipment. All intubations were performed by specialist (consultant) anaesthetists and video recorded. Twelve anaesthetists performed 36 intubations. Intubation time with no aerosol box was significantly shorter than with the early-generation box (median (IQR [range]) 42.9 (32.9-46.9 [30.9-57.6])s vs. 82.1 (45.1-98.3 [30.8-180.0])s p = 0.002) and the latest-generation box (52.4 (43.1-70.3 [35.7-169.2])s, p = 0.008). No intubations without a box took more than 1 min, whereas 14 (58%) intubations with a box took over 1 min and 4 (17%) took over 2 min (including one failure). Without an aerosol box, all anaesthetists obtained first-pass success. With the early-generation and latest-generation boxes, 9 (75%) and 10 (83%) participants obtained first-pass success, respectively. One breach of personal protective equipment occurred using the early-generation box and seven breaches occurred using the latest-generation box. Aerosol boxes may increase intubation times and therefore expose patients to the risk of hypoxia. They may cause damage to conventional personal protective equipment and therefore place clinicians at risk of infection. Further research is required before these devices can be considered safe for clinical use.

Difficult airway management algorithms: a directed review.

The primary aim of this study was to identify, describe and compare the content of existing difficult airway management algorithms. Secondly, we aimed to describe the literature reporting the implementation of these algorithms. A directed search across three databases (MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus) was performed. All articles were screened for relevance to the research aims and according to pre-determined exclusion criteria. We identified 38 published airway management algorithms. Our results show that most facemask employ a four-step process as represented by a flow chart, with progression from tracheal intubation, facemask ventilation and supraglottic airway device use, to a rescue emergency surgical airway. The identified algorithms are overwhelmingly similar, yet many use differing terminology. The frequency of algorithm publication has increased recently, yet adherence and implementation outcome data remain limited. Our results highlight the lack of a single algorithm that is universally endorsed, recognised and applicable to all difficult airway management situations.

The effects of team-training in intensive care medicine: A narrative review.

PURPOSE: Research into team-training within healthcare is growing exponentially. We aim to evaluate the effects of team-training within intensive care medicine (ICM) through a review of the literature and a narrative synthesis of the results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of OVID Medline, EMBASE and Scopus databases was undertaken. Keywords and MESH headings included were "team-based learning", "team-training", "interdisciplinary training", "intensive care medicine", "ICU", "intensive care unit", "critical care teams" and "critical care". Relevant papers were then analysed for a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Our search identified 187 articles. A total of 27 papers were analysed and their outcomes were evaluated based on the Kirkpatrick four step model of evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Team-training has been studied in multiple ICU team types, with crew resource management (CRM) and TeamSTEPPS curricula commonly used to support teaching via simulation. Clinical skills taught have included ALS provision, ECMO initiation, advanced airway management, sepsis management and trauma response skills. Team-training in ICU is well received by staff, facilitates clinical learning, and can positively alter staff behaviors. Few clinical outcomes have been demonstrated and the duration of the behavioral effects is unclear.

Should ongoing airway education be a mandatory component of continuing professional development for College of Intensive Care Medicine Fellows?

This study aimed to determine whether airway education should be introduced to the continuing professional development (CPD) program for College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) Fellows. A random representative sample of 11 tertiary intensive care units (ICUs) was chosen from the list of 56 units accredited for 12 or 24 months of CICM training. All specialist intensive care Fellows (n=140) currently practising at the eleven ICUs were sent the questionnaire via email. Questionnaire data collection and post-collection data analysis was used to determine basic respondent demographics, frequency of certain airway procedures in the past 12 months, confidence with advanced airway practices in ICU, participation in airway education in the past three years, knowledge of can't intubate, can't oxygenate (CICO) algorithms, preference for certain airway equipment/techniques, and support for required airway education as a component of the CICM CPD program. All responses were tabled for comparison. Data was analysed to establish any significant effect of another specialty qualification and current co-practice in anaesthesia on volume of practice, confidence with multiple airway procedures, use of airway equipment, and support for airway education. In total, 112 responses (response rate 80%) to the questionnaire were received within four weeks; 107 were completed in full (compliance 96%). All results were tabled. There is currently widespread support amongst CICM Fellows for airway skills education as a CPD requirement for CICM Fellows. Volumes of practice and confidence levels with different airway procedures vary amongst Fellows and further support the need for education.

Evaluating team-based inter-professional advanced life support training in intensive care-a prospective observational study.

Recent focus on national standards within Australian hospitals has prompted a focus on the training of our staff in advanced life support (ALS). Research in critical care nursing has questioned the traditional annual certification of ALS competence as the best method of delivering this training. Simulation and team-based training may provide better ALS education to intensive care unit (ICU) staff. Our new inter-professional team-based advanced life support program involved ICU staff in a large private metropolitan ICU. A prospective observational study using three standardised questionnaires and two multiple choice questionnaire assessments was conducted. Ninety-nine staff demonstrated a 17.8% (95% confidence interval 4.2-31, P=0.01) increase in overall ICU nursing attendance at training sessions. Questionnaire response rates were 93 (94%), 99 (100%) and 60 (61%) respectively; 51 (52%) staff returned all three. Criteria were assessed by scores from 0 to 10. Nurses reported improved satisfaction with the education program (9.4 to 7.1, P <0.001), as well as improvement in role understanding (8.7 and 9.1 versus 7.9 and 8.2, P <0.001) and confidence (8.4 and 8.8 versus 7.4 and 7.8, P <0.001) during ALS provision (outside ICU and inside ICU) following the course when compared to before the program. Doctors' only statistically significant improvement was in their confidence in ALS provision outside ICU (8.7 versus 8.1, P=0.04). The new program cost approximately an extra $16,500 in nursing salaries. We concluded that team-based, inter-professional ALS training produced statistically significant improvements in nursing attendance, satisfaction with ALS education, confidence and role understanding compared to traditional ALS training.