Supraglottic Airway Versus Tracheal Intubation for Airway Management in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Given the uncertainty regarding the optimal approach for airway management for adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the use of supraglottic airways (SGAs) with tracheal intubation for initial airway management in OHCA. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, as well as unpublished sources, from inception to February 7, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult OHCA patients randomized to SGA compared with tracheal intubation for initial prehospital airway management. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers screened abstracts, full texts, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effects model. We used the modified Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We preregistered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42022342935). DATA SYNTHESIS: We included four RCTs ( n = 13,412 patients). Compared with tracheal intubation , SGA use probably increases return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (relative risk [RR] 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15; moderate certainty) and leads to a faster time to airway placement (mean difference 2.5 min less; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4 min less; high certainty). SGA use may have no effect on survival at longest follow-up (RR 1.06; 95% CI, 0.84-1.34; low certainty), has an uncertain effect on survival with good functional outcome (RR 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82-1.50; very low certainty), and may have no effect on risk of aspiration (RR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.16; low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients with OHCA, compared with tracheal intubation, the use of SGA for initial airway management probably leads to more ROSC, and faster time to airway placement, but may have no effect on longer-term survival outcomes or aspiration events.

Intraoperative use of balanced crystalloids versus 0.9% saline: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: The evidence regarding optimal crystalloid use in the perioperative period remains unclear. As the primary aim of this study, we sought to summarise the data from RCTs examining whether use of balanced crystalloids compared with 0.9% saline (saline) leads to differences in patient-important outcomes. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Clinicaltrials.gov, from inception until December 15, 2022, and included RCTs that intraoperatively randomised adult participants to receive either balanced fluids or saline. We pooled data using a random-effects model and present risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs), along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed individual study risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: Of 5959 citations, we included 38 RCTs (n=3776 patients). Pooled analysis showed that intraoperative use of balanced fluids compared with saline had an uncertain effect on postoperative mortality analysed at the longest point of follow-up (RR 1.51, 95% CI: 0.42-5.36) and postoperative need for renal replacement therapy (RR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.56-1.59), both very low certainty. Furthermore, use of balanced crystalloids probably leads to a higher postoperative serum pH (MD 0.05, 95% CI: 0.04-0.06), moderate certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Use of balanced crystalloids, compared with saline, in the perioperative setting has an uncertain effect on mortality and need for renal replacement therapy but probably improves postoperative acid-base status. Further research is needed to determine whether balanced crystalloid use affects patient-important outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42022367593.

Definitions, rates and associated mortality of ICU-acquired pneumonia: A multicenter cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to analyze intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired pneumonia according to 7 definitions, estimating associated hospital mortality. METHODS: This cohort study was nested within an international randomized trial, evaluating the effect of probiotics on ICU-acquired pneumonia in 2650 mechanically ventilated adults. Each clinically suspected pneumonia was adjudicated by two physicians blinded to allocation and center. The primary outcome was ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) informed by ventilation for ≥2 days, new, progressive or persistent infiltrate plus 2 of: temperature > 38 °C or < 36 °C; leukopenia (<3 × 10(Fernando et al., 20206)/L) or leukocytosis (>10 × 10(Fernando et al., 20206)/L); and purulent sputum. We also used 6 other definitions estimating the risk of hospital mortality. RESULTS: The frequency of ICU-acquired pneumonia varied by definition: the trial primary outcome VAP (21.6%), Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) (24.9%), American College Chest Physicians (ACCP) (25.0%), International Sepsis Forum (ISF) (24.4%), Reducing Oxidative Stress Study (REDOXS) (17.6%), Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (7.8%), and invasively microbiologically confirmed (1.9%). The trial primary outcome VAP (HR 1.31 [1.08, 1.60]), ISF (HR 1.32 [1.09,1.60]), CPIS (HR 1.30 [1.08,1.58]) and ACCP definitions (HR 1.22 [1.00,1.47]) were associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of ICU-acquired pneumonia vary by definition and are associated with differential increased risk of death.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 2021: highlights for the practicing clinician.

The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines provided evidence-based recommendations for adult patients with sepsis and septic shock. This iteration of the guidelines placed increased emphasis on a diverse, global perspective, as well as on the long-term sequelae of sepsis experienced by patients and their families. The guidelines encompassed the following sections: 1) screening and early treatment; 2) infection; 3) hemodynamic management; 4) ventilation; 5) additional therapies; and 6) goals of care and long-term outcomes. In this review, we provide a summary of key recommendations of interest to the practicing clinician, which are either novel or require a change in practice, as well as those for which the evidence has substantially evolved in the 5 years since the 2016 iteration of the Guidelines. Rather than reviewing the underlying evidence, we emphasize the practical aspects of interpretation, dissemination, and implementation of these recommendations in the clinical setting.

Dexmedetomidine vs other sedatives in critically ill mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Dexmedetomidine is an alternative sedative that may achieve lighter sedation, reduce delirium, and provide analgesia. Our objective was to perform a comprehensive systematic review summarizing the large body of evidence, determining if dexmedetomidine reduces delirium compared to conventional sedatives. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021. Independent pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine to other sedatives for mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The results were reported as relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 77 randomized trials (n = 11,997) were included. Compared to other sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.81; moderate certainty), the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 1.8 h, 95% CI - 2.89 to - 0.71; low certainty), and ICU length of stay (MD - 0.32 days, 95% CI - 0.42 to - 0.22; low certainty). Dexmedetomidine use increased the risk of bradycardia (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.13; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; low certainty). In mechanically ventilated adults, the use of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives, resulted in a lower risk of delirium, and a modest reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, but increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension.

Effect of Awake Prone Positioning on Endotracheal Intubation in Patients With COVID-19 and Acute Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The efficacy and safety of prone positioning is unclear in nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of prone positioning in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, unblinded randomized clinical trial conducted at 21 hospitals in Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the US. Eligible adult patients with COVID-19 were not intubated and required oxygen (≥40%) or noninvasive ventilation. A total of 400 patients were enrolled between May 19, 2020, and May 18, 2021, and final follow-up was completed in July 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to awake prone positioning (n = 205) or usual care without prone positioning (control; n = 195). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation within 30 days of randomization. The secondary outcomes included mortality at 60 days, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days, days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 400 patients who were randomized (mean age, 57.6 years [SD, 12.83 years]; 117 [29.3%] were women), all (100%) completed the trial. In the first 4 days after randomization, the median duration of prone positioning was 4.8 h/d (IQR, 1.8 to 8.0 h/d) in the awake prone positioning group vs 0 h/d (IQR, 0 to 0 h/d) in the control group. By day 30, 70 of 205 patients (34.1%) in the prone positioning group were intubated vs 79 of 195 patients (40.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.12], P = .20; absolute difference, -6.37% [95% CI, -15.83% to 3.10%]). Prone positioning did not significantly reduce mortality at 60 days (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.40], P = .54; absolute difference, -1.15% [95% CI, -9.40% to 7.10%]) and had no significant effect on days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days or on days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days. There were no serious adverse events in either group. In the awake prone positioning group, 21 patients (10%) experienced adverse events and the most frequently reported were musculoskeletal pain or discomfort from prone positioning (13 of 205 patients [6.34%]) and desaturation (2 of 205 patients [0.98%]). There were no reported adverse events in the control group. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19, prone positioning, compared with usual care without prone positioning, did not significantly reduce endotracheal intubation at 30 days. However, the effect size for the primary study outcome was imprecise and does not exclude a clinically important benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04350723.

Use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients: a rapid practice guideline.

PURPOSE: The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM­RPG) was to formulate evidence­based guidance for the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in invasively mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, including use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence, and the Evidence-to-Decision framework to generate recommendations. The guideline panel comprised 28 international panelists, including content experts, ICU clinicians, methodologists, and patient representatives. Through teleconferences and web­based discussions, the panel provided input on the balance and magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs and resources, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. RESULTS: The ICM­RPG panel issued one weak recommendation (suggestion) based on overall moderate certainty of evidence: "In invasively mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients, we suggest using dexmedetomidine over other sedative agents, if the desirable effects including a reduction in delirium are valued over the undesirable effects including an increase in hypotension and bradycardia". CONCLUSION: This ICM-RPG provides updated evidence-based guidance on the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in mechanically ventilated adults, and outlines uncertainties and research priorities.

Use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients: a rapid practice guideline

The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM­RPG) was to formulate evidence­based guidance for the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in invasively mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit (ICU). We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, including use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence, and the Evidence-to-Decision framework to generate recommendations. The guideline panel comprised 28 international panelists, including content experts, ICU clinicians, methodologists, and patient representatives. Through teleconferences and web­based discussions, the panel provided input on the balance and magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs and resources, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. The ICM­RPG panel issued one weak recommendation (suggestion) based on overall moderate certainty of evidence: "In invasively mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients, we suggest using dexmedetomidine over other sedative agents, if the desirable effects including a reduction in delirium are valued over the undesirable effects including an increase in hypotension and bradycardia". This ICM-RPG provides updated evidence-based guidance on the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in mechanically ventilated adults, and outlines uncertainties and research priorities.

End-of-Life Skills and Professionalism for Critical Care Residents in Training: The ESPRIT Survey.

End-of-life (EOL) care is a key aspect of critical care medicine (CCM) training. The goal of this study was to survey CCM residents and program directors (PDs) across Canada to describe current EOL care education. Using a literature review, we created a self-administered survey encompassing 10 CCM national objectives of training to address: (1) curricular content and evaluation methods, (2) residents' preparedness to meet these objectives, and (3) opportunities for educational improvement. We performed pilot testing and clinical sensibility testing, then distributed it to all residents and PDs across the 13 Canadian CCM programs. Our response rate was 84.3% overall (77 [81.1%] for residents and 13 [100%] for PDs). Residents rated direct observation, informal advice, and self-reflection as both the top 3 most utilized and perceived most effective teaching modalities. Residents most commonly reported comfort with skills related to pain and symptom management (n = 67, 94.3%; score > 3 on 5-point Likert scale), and least commonly reported comfort with donation after cardiac death skills (n = 26-38; 44.8%-65.5%). Base specialty and time in CCM training were independently associated with comfort ratings for some, but not all, EOL skills. With respect to family meetings, residents infrequently received feedback; however, most PDs believed feedback on 6 to 10 meetings is required for competence. When PD perceptions of teaching effectiveness were compared with resident comfort ratings, differences were most apparent for skills related to pain and symptom management, cultural awareness, and ethical principles. By the end of their first subspecialty training year, PDs expect residents to be competent at most, but not all, EOL skills. In summary, trainees and programs rely on clinical activities to develop competency in EOL care, resulting in some educational gaps. Transitioning to competency-based medical education presents an opportunity to address some of these gaps, while other gaps will require more specific curricular intervention.

Neuromuscular blocking agents in acute respiratory distress syndrome: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PURPOSE: Existing clinical practice guidelines support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, a recent large randomized clinical trial (RCT) has questioned this practice. Therefore, we updated a previous systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of NMBAs in ARDS. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE (October 2012 to July 2019), the Cochrane (Central) database, and clinical trial registries ( ClinicalTrials.gov , ISRCTN Register, and WHO ICTRP) for RCTs comparing the effects of NMBA as a continuous infusion versus placebo or no NMBA infusion (but allowing intermittent NMBA boluses) on patient-important outcomes for adults with ARDS. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality of the primary studies and abstracted data. RESULTS: Seven RCTs, including four new RCTs, met eligibility criteria for this review. These trials enrolled 1598 patients with moderate to severe ARDS at centers in the USA, France, and China. All trials assessed short-term continuous infusions of cisatracurium or vecuronium. The pooled estimate for mortality outcomes showed significant statistical heterogeneity, which was only explained by a subgroup analysis by depth of sedation in the control arm. A continuous NMBA infusion did not improve mortality when compared to a light sedation strategy with no NMBA infusion (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.86-1.15; moderate certainty; P = 0.93). On the other hand, continuous NMBA infusion reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation with as needed NMBA boluses (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.57-0.89; low certainty; P = 0.003). Continuous NMBA infusion reduced the rate of barotrauma (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.85, moderate certainty; P = 0.008) across eligible trials, but the effect on ventilator-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU-acquired weakness was uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistency in study methods and findings precluded the pooling of all trials for mortality. In a pre-planned sensitivity analysis, the impact of NMBA infusion on mortality depends on the strategy used in the control arm, showing reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation, but no effect on mortality when compared to lighter sedation. In both situations, a continuous NMBA infusion may reduce the risk of barotrauma, but the effects on other patient-important outcomes remain unclear. Future research, including an individual patient data meta-analysis, could help clarify some of the observed findings in this updated systematic review.

Adjuvant Analgesic Use in the Critically Ill: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of nonopioid adjunctive analgesics for patients in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers screened citations. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing efficacy and safety of an adjuvant-plus-opioid regimen to opioids alone in adult ICU patients. DATA EXTRACTION: We conducted duplicate screening of citations and data abstraction. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 10,949 initial citations, we identified 34 eligible trials. These trials examined acetaminophen, carbamazepine, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium sulfate, nefopam, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (including diclofenac, indomethacin, and ketoprofen), pregabalin, and tramadol as adjunctive analgesics. Use of any adjuvant in addition to an opioid as compared to an opioid alone led to reductions in patient-reported pain scores at 24 hours (standard mean difference, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.47; low certainty) and decreased opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents over 24 hr; mean difference, 25.89 mg less; 95% CI, 19.97-31.81 mg less; low certainty). In terms of individual medications, reductions in opioid use were demonstrated with acetaminophen (mean difference, 36.17 mg less; 95% CI, 7.86-64.47 mg less; low certainty), carbamazepine (mean difference, 54.69 mg less; 95% CI, 40.39-to 68.99 mg less; moderate certainty), dexmedetomidine (mean difference, 10.21 mg less; 95% CI, 1.06-19.37 mg less; low certainty), ketamine (mean difference, 36.81 mg less; 95% CI, 27.32-46.30 mg less; low certainty), nefopam (mean difference, 70.89 mg less; 95% CI, 64.46-77.32 mg less; low certainty), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (mean difference, 11.07 mg less; 95% CI, 2.7-19.44 mg less; low certainty), and tramadol (mean difference, 22.14 mg less; 95% CI, 6.67-37.61 mg less; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should consider using adjunct agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in critically ill patients.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.

A Multidisciplinary Survey to Assess Facilitators and Barriers to Successful Organ Donation in the Intensive Care Unit.

INTRODUCTION: Rates of successful organ donation vary between otherwise comparable intensive care units (ICUs). The ICU staff have a unique perspective into the facilitators and barriers underlying this variation in successful deceased organ donation. RESEARCH QUESTION: What do ICU staff perceive to be the most meaningful facilitators and barriers to deceased organ donation? DESIGN: We designed and conducted a survey of all disciplines working in the ICU to ascertain the perceived facilitators and barriers to donation in an academic tertiary care hospital. Survey reliability was assessed using Cronbach α. Factor analysis was used to assess construct validity and identify potentially redundant survey items. RESULTS: We had responses from 108 ICU staff, including nurses (n = 75), respiratory therapists (n = 14), physicians (n = 12), chaplains (n = 2), as well as social work, pharmacy, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy (n = 1 each). Perceived facilitators included availability of organ donation organization coordinators, explicit institutional support for donation, ICU staff culture toward donation, standardized order sets for donation, presence of ICU staff with donation experience, and bedside nurse presence at discussions about donation. Perceived barriers included ICU staff ruling out potentially suitable donors before consulting a donor coordinator, physician communication skills, low priority for organ donation among operating room staff, limited family understanding of patient prognosis and organ donation, and limited emotional readiness of families to discuss donation. DISCUSSION: Several staff-perceived facilitators and barriers to deceased organ donation were identified in the ICU. Future research could identify strategies to promote these facilitators and overcome barriers.

A mixed-methods study of organ donation in the intensive care unit: 22 actionable practices to improve organ donation.

PURPOSE: Rates of organ donation vary between otherwise comparable intensive care units (ICUs) suggesting that the process of donation must vary between ICUs. The purpose of this study was to describe the process of organ donation from the perspective of ICU staff, identify important drivers of successful donation, and develop strategies to improve the process of donation. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 32 ICU staff, including physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists, using an interview guide developed from previous studies on organ donation. Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we coded interviews using qualitative content analysis. We integrated findings from the interviews in a mixed-methods analysis with previously published data from a document analysis and cross-sectional survey to identify practices that may enhance organ donation in the ICU. RESULTS: Five major themes important to the organ donation process emerged from the interviews: i) staff relationship with organ donation coordinators; ii) standardized processes; iii) ICU staff beliefs; iv) integration of donation and high quality end-of-life care; v) feedback and staff support. In the mixed-methods analysis, we identified 22 actionable practices to enhance the process of organ donation in the ICU. CONCLUSION: Incorporating the perspectives of ICU staff, we were able to identify 22 practice changes that may have a significant cumulative impact on donation outcomes. Future research is required to evaluate whether these findings account for the variability of donation rates between otherwise comparable ICUs.