Focused transoesophageal TOE (fTOE): A new accreditation pathway.

The concept of a focused ultrasound study to identify sources of haemodynamic instability has revolutionized patient care. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) using transthoracic scanning protocols, such as FUSIC Heart, has empowered non-cardiologists to rapidly identify and treat the major causes of haemodynamic instability. There are, however, circumstances when a transoesphageal, rather than transthoracic approach, may be preferrable. Due to the close anatomical proximity between the oesophagus, stomach and heart, a transoesphageal echocardiogram (TOE) can potentially overcome many of the limitations encountered in patients with poor transthoracic ultrasound windows. These are typically patients with severe obesity, chest wall injuries, inability to lie in the left lateral decubitus position and those receiving high levels of positive airway pressure. In 2022, to provide all acute care practitioners with the opportunity to acquire competency in focused TOE, the Intensive Care Society (ICS) and Association of Anaesthetists (AA) launched a new accreditation pathway, known as Focused Transoesophageal Echo (fTOE). The aim of fTOE is to provide the practitioner with the necessary information to identify the aetiology of haemodynamic instability. Focused TOE can be taught in a shorter period of time than comprehensive and teaching programmes are achievable with support from cardiothoracic anaesthetists, intensivists and cardiologists. Registration for fTOE accreditation requires registration via the ICS website. Learning material include theoretical modules, clinical cases and multiple-choice questions. Fifty fTOE examinations are required for the logbook, and these must cover a range of pathology, including ventricular dysfunction, pericardial effusion, tamponade, pleural effusion and low preload. The final practical assessment may be undertaken when the supervisors deem the candidate's knowledge and skills consistent with that required for independent practice. After the practitioner has been accredited in fTOE, they must maintain knowledge and competence through relevant continuing medical education. Accreditation in fTOE represents a joint venture between the ICS and AA and is endorsed by Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Critical care (ACTACC). The process is led by TOE experts, and represents a valuable expansion in the armamentarium of acute care practitioners to assess haemodynamically unstable patients.

CORONA (COre ultRasOund of covid in iNtensive care and Acute medicine) study: National service evaluation of lung and heart ultrasound in intensive care patients with suspected or proven COVID-19.

Background: Combined Lung Ultrasound (LUS) and Focused UltraSound for Intensive Care heart (FUSIC Heart - formerly Focused Intensive Care Echocardiography, FICE) can aid diagnosis, risk stratification and management in COVID-19. However, data on its application and results are limited to small studies in varying countries and hospitals. This United Kingdom (UK) national service evaluation study assessed how combined LUS and FUSIC Heart were used in COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Method: Twelve trusts across the UK registered for this prospective study. LUS and FUSIC Heart data were obtained, using a standardised data set including scoring of abnormalities, between 1st February 2020 to 30th July 2020. The scans were performed by intensivists with FUSIC Lung and Heart competency as a minimum standard. Data was anonymised locally prior to transfer to a central database. Results: 372 studies were performed on 265 patients. There was a small but significant relationship between LUS score >8 and 30-day mortality (OR 1.8). Progression of score was associated with an increase in 30-day mortality (OR 1.2). 30-day mortality was increased in patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction (49.4% vs 29.2%). Severity of LUS score correlated with RV dysfunction (p < 0.05). Change in management occurred in 65% of patients following a combined scan. Conclusions: In COVID-19 patients, there is an association between lung ultrasound score severity, RV dysfunction and mortality identifiable by combined LUS and FUSIC Heart. The use of 12-point LUS scanning resulted in similar risk score to 6-point imaging in the majority of cases. Our findings suggest that serial combined LUS and FUSIC Heart on COVID-19 ICU patients may aid in clinical decision making and prognostication.

EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) SHORT VERSION.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence and produce a summary and recommendations for the most common heart and lung point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS). METHODS: We reviewed 10 clinical domains/questions related to common heart and lung applications of PoCUS. Following review of the evidence, a summary and recommendations were produced, including assigning levels of evidence (LoE) and grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). 38 international experts, the expert review group (ERG), were invited to review the evidence presented for each question. A level of agreement of over 75 % was required to progress to the next section. The ERG then reviewed and indicated their level of agreement of the summary and recommendation for each question (using a 5-point Likert scale), which was approved in the case of a level of agreement of greater than 75 %. A level of agreement was defined as a summary of "strongly agree" and "agree" on the Likert scale responses. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: One question achieved a strong consensus for an assigned LoE of 3 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 1), the remaining 9 questions achieved broad agreement with an assigned LoE of 4 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 2), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a weak GRADE recommendation (questions 3-5), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 6-8) and the remaining two were assigned an LoE of 2 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 9 and 10). CONCLUSION: These consensus-derived recommendations should aid clinical practice and highlight areas of further research for PoCUS in acute settings.

EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) LONG VERSION.

AIMS: To evaluate the evidence and produce a summary and recommendations for the most common heart and lung applications of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS). METHODS: We reviewed 10 clinical domains/questions related to common heart and lung applications of PoCUS. Following review of the evidence, a summary and recommendation were produced, including assignment of levels of evidence (LoE) and grading of the recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). 38 international experts, the expert review group (ERG), were invited to review the evidence presented for each question. A level of agreement of over 75 % was required to progress to the next section. The ERG then reviewed and indicated their level of agreement regarding the summary and recommendation for each question (using a 5-point Likert scale), which was approved if a level of agreement of greater than 75 % was reached. A level of agreement was defined as a summary of "strongly agree" and "agree" on the Likert scale responses. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: One question achieved a strong consensus for an assigned LoE of 3 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 1). The remaining 9 questions achieved broad agreement with one assigned an LoE of 4 and weak GRADE recommendation (question 2), three achieving an LoE of 3 with a weak GRADE recommendation (questions 3-5), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 6-8), and the remaining two were assigned an LoE of 2 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 9 and 10). CONCLUSION: These consensus-derived recommendations should aid clinical practice and highlight areas of further research for PoCUS in acute settings.

FUSIC HD. Comprehensive haemodynamic assessment with ultrasound.

FUSIC haemodynamics (HD) - the latest Focused Ultrasound in Intensive Care (FUSIC) module created by the Intensive Care Society (ICS) - describes a complete haemodynamic assessment with ultrasound based on ten key clinical questions: 1. Is stroke volume abnormal? 2. Is stroke volume responsive to fluid, vasopressors or inotropes? 3. Is the aorta abnormal? 4. Is the aortic valve, mitral valve or tricuspid valve severely abnormal? 5. Is there systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve? 6. Is there a regional wall motion abnormality? 7. Are there features of raised left atrial pressure? 8. Are there features of right ventricular impairment or raised pulmonary artery pressure? 9. Are there features of tamponade? 10. Is there venous congestion? FUSIC HD is the first system of its kind to interrogate major cardiac, arterial and venous structures to direct time-critical interventions in acutely unwell patients. This article explains the rationale for this accreditation, outlines the training pathway and summarises the ten clinical questions. Further details are included in an online supplementary appendix.

British Society of Echocardiography Departmental Accreditation Standards 2019 with input from the Intensive Care Society.

This article sets out a summary of standards for departmental accreditation set by the British Society of Echocardiography (BSE) Departmental Accreditation Committee. Full accreditation standards are available at www.bsecho.org. The BSE were the first national organisation to establish a quality standards framework for departments that support the practice of individual echocardiographers. This is an updated version which recognises that, not only should all echocardiographers be individually accredited as competent to practice, but that departments also need to be well organised and have the facilities, equipment and processes to ensure the services they deliver are of an appropriate clinical standard. In combination with individual accreditation, departmental accreditation lays down standards to help ensure safe and effective patient care. These standards supersede the 2012 BSE Departmental Accreditation Standards. Standards are set to cover all potential areas of practice, including transthoracic (level 2) echocardiography, transoesophageal echocardiography, stress echocardiography, training, and emergency (level 1) echocardiography. The emergency echocardiography standard is a new addition to departmental accreditation and has been developed with input from the Intensive Care Society.

A prolonged and successful heparin-free extracorporeal membrane oxygenation run in isolated thoracic trauma: A case report.

A 21-year-old patient has been treated in emergency with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation after severe thoracic trauma causing severe air leak and haemothorax. The extracorporeal assistance was managed without heparin for 10 days till the full recovery of the lung, and no side-effect was recorded.

A patient-centred model to quality assure outputs from an echocardiography department: consensus guidance from the British Society of Echocardiography.

Background Quality assurance (QA) of echocardiographic studies is vital to ensure that clinicians can act on findings of high quality to deliver excellent patient care. To date, there is a paucity of published guidance on how to perform this QA. The British Society of Echocardiography (BSE) has previously produced an Echocardiography Quality Framework (EQF) to assist departments with their QA processes. This article expands on the EQF with a structured yet versatile approach on how to analyse echocardiographic departments to ensure high-quality standards are met. In addition, a process is detailed for departments that are seeking to demonstrate to external bodies adherence to a robust QA process. Methods The EQF consists of four domains. These include assessment of Echo Quality (including study acquisition and report generation); Reproducibility & Consistency (including analysis of individual variability when compared to the group and focused clinical audit), Education & Training (for all providers and service users) and Customer & Staff Satisfaction (of both service users and patients/their carers). Examples of what could be done in each of these areas are presented. Furthermore, evidence of participation in each domain is categorised against a red, amber or green rating: with an amber or green rating signifying that a quantifiable level of engagement in that aspect of QA has been achieved. Conclusion The proposed EQF is a powerful tool that focuses the limited time available for departmental QA on areas of practice where a change in patient experience or outcome is most likely to occur.

Navigating the benefits and burdens of life-saving treatment in severely decompensated cirrhosis: an illustrative, multisourced narrative.

Severely decompensated cirrhosis presents major challenges in terms of balancing the benefits and burdens of life-extending treatment. Using accounts and interviews with a patient, her mother, consultant hepatologists and a consultant intensivist, this article explores the decision making around a 43-year-old woman with alcoholic liver disease who died after 100 days in a hospital. Particular focus is given to decisions on escalation, recognition of futility, distress associated with therapy and how messages given during end-of-life discussions are processed. Without suggesting that the case is an example of ideal practice, the importance of frequent multidisciplinary discussion, clinical re-evaluation and continuity of care is emphasised.

Do critically ill liver patients experience negative bias? A web-based survey examining doctors opinions to critical care escalation.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is negative bias towards escalating levels of care in decompensated cirrhosis, compared with other patient groups. DESIGN: An electronic survey containing eight acute clinical scenarios with equivalent physiological derangement, in which respondents were asked to score the degree to which they would advocate for intensive care unit admission on a scale of 1-10. Scenarios included respiratory, haematology, vascular, renal, gastrointestinal, postoperative and hepatological conditions. Follow-up questions examined the reasons why the patient should or should not be transferred, and enquired about ceilings of care, end-of-life decisions, degree of organ support and healthcare financial rationing. 273 doctors responded. SETTING: Secondary care hospitals in south of England. PATIENTS: None involved. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Advocacy score (1-10) and subsidiary responses. RESULTS: The hepatology patient ranked 4th of 8 with a mean advocacy score of 7.2. There were no significant differences between intensivists and physicians or between grades of seniority. Of those less likely to escalate (score 1-5, n=42), the reasons given were based on unsurvivability or excessive burden of treatment rather than aetiology. One-fifth cited 'lifestyle decision'. 25 (62.5%) respondents not favouring escalation would make the patient DNACPR, 17 (42.5%) would stipulate ward-based care only and a small minority would instigate active palliation. Of those favouring escalation (advocacy score 6-10), 70% (n=122) would consider unlimited organ support. Fifty-four (29.5% of those who answered) said they 'sometimes' or 'frequently' consider resource allocation when making decisions about escalation of care. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with a variety of acute medical scenarios, doctors did not overly appear to exhibit therapeutic nihilism for patients with decompensated liver disease; however, significant variation in interpretation of the data and management approaches was identified.