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.

Colesevelam hydrochloride: a non-absorbed, polymeric cholesterol-lowering agent.

Colesevelam hydrochloride (formerly known as Cholestagel((R)) and re-named WelCholtrade mark, GelTex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sankyo Parke-Davis) is a new, polymeric, high potency, water-absorbing hydrogel. It has been shown to be a safe and effective cholesterol-lowering agent with a non-systemic mechanism of action, good tolerability and minimal side effects. To date, the lipid-lowering activity of colesevelam has been evaluated in approximately 1400 subjects. Colesevelam reduces low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol levels, in a dose-dependent manner, by as much as 20% (median) in patients with hypercholesterolaemia. Dosing regimen evaluations indicate that colesevelam is effective at both once per day and twice daily dosing and that concurrent administration of colesevelam with hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins), specifically lovastatin, does not alter the absorption of the statin. Combination therapy with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, including lovastatin, simvastatin and atorvastatin, produces an additional reduction (8 - 16%) in LDL-cholesterol levels above that seen with the statin alone. The overall incidence of adverse effects with colesevelam alone and in combination with statins is comparable with that seen with placebo. Colesevelam lacks the constipating effect seen with typical bile acid sequestrants, a trait that would be expected to improve compliance with lipid-lowering therapy. Colesevelam, recently approved by the US FDA, represents a valuable non-absorbed alternative in the armamentarium against hypercholesterolaemia, both for monotherapy and combination therapy, as an adjunct to diet and exercise.

Continuing education for advanced practice nurses.

Continuing education (CE) enables the advanced practice nurse (APN) to be apprised of practice issues and meet recertification requirements. Opportunities for obtaining CE program credits for APNs have expanded, yet uncertainty exists regarding specific program requirements for obtaining state and national certification. To obtain accurate information related to state requirements for CE for APNs, all 50 state boards of nursing were contacted by telephone in July 1998. Responses were received from all 50 states by telephone or facsimile transmission. This article outlines information related to CE for APNs including state renewal and national recertification requirements. Factors to consider when deciding on CE offerings in advanced practice nursing are also discussed.

Evolving role descriptions of the acute care nurse practitioner.

Currently, more than 1,200 advanced practice nurses have sought certification as acute care nurse practitioners (ACNPs). Surveys of practicing ACNPs have shown that the role is expanding in terms of practice settings and role components. This article reports on the results of ongoing survey with ACNPs that portray the role of the ACNP as an evolving career opportunity for advanced practice nurses.

Factors influencing intensive care unit survival for critically ill elderly patients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine factors influencing intensive care unit (ICU) survival for critically ill elderly patients and to compare survivors and nonsurvivors of ICU on demographic and illness-related variables. DESIGN: Retrospective, ex post facto research design. SETTING: Adult medical and surgical ICUs. PATIENTS: The records of 164 survivors and 111 nonsurvivors from 2 medical-surgical ICUs were examined. Patients were placed into 3 age groups (middle-aged, young-old, and old-old) to compare outcomes for elderly ICU patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: ICU survival, ICU treatments received, severity of illness. INTERVENTION: The Acute Physiology Age and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) was used to assess illness severity. Additional illness-related information was collected by chart review. RESULTS: Predictors of ICU nonsurvival were severity of illness (measured by APACHE II scores) and intubation. Comparison of survivors and nonsurvivors revealed no statistically significant differences in sex or age. For all age groups, nonsurvivors had significantly higher mean days of ICU hospitalization (F (1,239) = 7.20 P < .0078) and higher APACHE II scores (F (1,239) = 106.5 P < .0001). Analysis of ICU treatments received by the 3 age groups of survivors revealed a significant difference only on oxygen therapy, (chi-square = 10.2, df = 2, P = .006), with more young-old (aged 65 to 79) and old-old (aged 80 and older) ICU patients receiving oxygen therapy than middle-aged patients (aged 45 to 64). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study demonstrated that severity of illness was a predictor of ICU outcome; age was not. Additionally, age was not related to ICU treatments received.

Reports of role descriptions of acute care nurse practitioners.

Expanded roles and practice settings are evolving for the Acute Care Nurse Practitioner (ACNP). In this study, the ACNP's role is described by 384 people seeking certification. Although ACNPs continue to work predominantly in tertiary care centers, ACNP roles in secondary and other facilities have emerged. Acute care nurse practitioners report that managing patient care; providing care consistency; interacting with family members; planning for patient discharge; and teaching the patient, family, and other members of the health care team are major focuses of the role. Changes in health care will continue to give rise to new and innovative settings for ACNP practice. Communication about the ACNP remains essential to gaining acceptance of the role and enabling its expansion.

Improving telephone follow-up after ambulatory surgery.

The number of ambulatory surgery procedures performed annually is steadily increasing. Telephone follow-up of patients after ambulatory surgery remains an important component of care for ambulatory surgery patients. The purpose of this prospective quality improvement project was to obtain a more comprehensive telephone follow-up of ambulatory surgery patients in a large metropolitan medical center. During a 3 month evaluation period, 485 patients (61% of a convenience sample of 798 who had undergone an ambulatory surgical procedure) were interviewed to determine the incidence of side effects and elicit patient satisfaction. Postoperative side effects reported most frequently included pain, bleeding, nausea, dizziness, and fever. A majority of patients reported receiving adequate discharge instructions and excellent nursing care. This quality improvement project initiated by staff nurses resulted in changes in the procedure for documenting postoperative phone assessments from narrative notes to the use of a semistructured form for telephone follow-up after ambulatory surgery.

Whose outcomes. Patients, providers, or payers?

While it is clear that measuring outcomes is important, choosing which outcomes to measure remains unclear. Controversy exists in outcomes measurement as to which specific outcome measures should be selected. Additionally, should one set of outcome measures be used for one purpose, such as comparing overall medical outcomes and another set used for another purpose, such as comparing individual patient outcomes? While it becomes obvious that comparisons would be easier if the same outcomes were used, knowing which outcomes to choose to best measure an effect is not always an easy task. The challenge in outcomes measurement comes in selecting outcomes that are comprehensive, comparable, meaningful, and accurate in their reflection of the effects of care.

What influences patients' reports of three aspects of hospital services?

OBJECTIVES: Market forces make it essential to know what policies and actions influence patients' reports of hospital services. No studies have examined the role of patient characteristics, labor quality and staff characteristics, nonlabor resources, managerial practices, and employee attitudes within a single investigation. METHODS: The authors collected, simultaneously, data about labor, management and service processes, nonlabor resources, and employee attitudes on 117 nonintensive medical-surgical inpatient units in 17 hospitals selected from a pool of 69 institutions within a metropolitan area by a stratified random sample. Of the 2,595 patients who agreed to participate, 2,051 (79%) completed telephone interviews regarding their experiences with physical care, education, and pain management services within 26 days of hospital discharge. RESULTS: A significant amount of variation in patients' service reports was explained (adjusted R2 = 0.41 physical care, 0.35 pain management, 0.44 education). Although the predictors varied for each service report, patient characteristics, especially those related to personal resources, had a large explanatory role. A labor assignment pattern that could explain why earlier studies found labor quality and staff characteristics to have only a weak role in the prediction of patients' service reports was noted. CONCLUSIONS: The results related to patient characteristics may indicate opportunities to improve care by confronting service design strategies that erroneously rely on a homogeneous patient population. Measurement challenges identified by this study must be addressed to determine the role of labor quantity and staff characteristics.

Acute-care nurse practitioners: roles and practice profiles.

The purpose of this study was to explore aspects of the acute-care nurse practitioner (ACNP) role. The first certification examination for ACNPs was administered in December 1995. In January 1996, all applicants were mailed a study questionnaire about their practice. Responses were received from 125 of the 136 applicants (93% response rate). Work settings included hospital-based specialty and unit-based areas, urgent-care centers, and multipractice clinics. Predominant role components were conducting histories and physical examinations, prescribing treatments, and performing therapeutic procedures. Although long hours, resistance and uncertainty about the role, and perceived low salary exist, advantages identified reflect the role's autonomy, broad scope of practice, and contributions to collaborative care. Further exploration of roles, practice issues and outcomes of care will provide additional information about this new practitioner in advanced practice nursing.