The Australian and New Zealand Clinician Educator Network (ANZCEN) Unconference: What's an unconference and how can it develop communities of practice?

The Australian and New Zealand Clinician Educator Network (ANZCEN) is a collaborative interprofessional group developed to promote the development of education in critical care healthcare practice. In November 2018, 45 critical care practitioners met at the first ANZCEN Unconference. In an unconference, the participants drive the agenda, and learning occurs from the active process of engaging in a community of practice. The aim of this unconference was to develop an innovative approach to learning through a collaborative framework with interprofessional representation across critical care specialties. Four key themes were identified in the unconference as drivers of interprofessional critical care educational priorities: interprofessional learning, workplace learning, faculty development, research, and scholarship. In this discussion paper, we describe our experiences organizing, participating in, and evaluating an unconference, and we examine its usefulness as a medium for promoting the interprofessional learning agenda in critical care. We hope that the processes outlined in this discussion paper will provide a useful resource for other clinicians who are considering developing an unconference. Finally, we argue that the unconference offers a unique and important model for future education of critical care practitioners where the emphasis on collaboration and communication through interprofessional learning and practice will be required to improve health outcomes and promote a patient-centered model of care.

Hospital-acquired complications in intensive care unit patients with diabetes: A before-and-after study of a conventional versus liberal glucose control protocol.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at increased risk of in-hospital complications and the optimal glycemic target for such patients remains unclear. A more liberal approach to glucose control has recently been suggested for patients with DM, but uncertainty remains regarding its impact on complications. METHODS: We aimed to test the hypothesis that complications would be more common with a liberal glycemic target in ICU patients with DM. Thus, we compared hospital-acquired complications in the first 400 critically ill patients with DM included in a sequential before-and-after trial of liberal (glucose target: 10-14 mmol/L) vs conventional (glucose target: 6-10 mmol/L) glucose control. RESULTS: Of the 400 patients studied, 165 (82.5%) patients in the liberal and 177 (88.5%) in the conventional-control group were coded for at least one hospital-acquired complication (P = 0.09). When comparing clinically relevant complications diagnosed between ICU admission and hospital discharge, we found no difference in the odds for infectious (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for liberal-control: 1.15 [95% CI: 0.68-1.96], P = 0.60), cardiovascular (aOR 1.40 [95% CI: 0.63-3.12], P = 0.41) or neurological complications (aOR: 1.07 [95% CI: 0.61-1.86], P = 0.81), acute kidney injury (aOR 0.83 [95% CI: 0.43-1.58], P = 0.56) or hospital mortality (aOR: 1.09 [95% CI: 0.59-2.02], P = 0.77) between the liberal and the conventional-control group. CONCLUSION: In this prospective before-and-after study, liberal glucose control was not associated with an increased risk of hospital-acquired infectious, cardiovascular, renal or neurological complications in critically ill patients with diabetes.

Pediatric pressure injuries: does modifying a tool alter the risk assessment outcome?

The aim of this study was to determine whether assessing patient risk of developing pressure injuries in Pediatric Intensive Care (PICU) and Neonatal Units (NNU) using a modification of the Glamorgan Scale (mGS) would alter the risk identification when compared to the Glamorgan Scale (GS). Prospective data were collected from a convenience sample of patients admitted to PICU or NNU during a 2-month period. The patients' pressure injury risk score using both instruments was collected by observing patients, reviewing patient records, and clarifying information with bedside nurses. Chi square analysis was used to compare the risk category allocations. A total of 133 patients were assessed with complete data available for 112 (PICU = 68, NNU = 65). The total number of admissions during the data collection period was 202 in PICU and 100 in NNU. There was an extensive spread of patients allocated to the "High Risk" and "Very High Risk" categories in both units. Only one was in the lower "At Risk" category. There was little difference in allocated risk category between the mGS and the GS (p = 0.982). Only one patient was not allocated to the same risk category by both tools. In addition to identifying little difference in risk identification the mGS was found to be easier to complete. The mGS delivered the same risk rating as the GS when applied to patients in the PICU and NNU. It is not clear if a similar agreement exists in the general pediatric population. When modifying a validated tool for local use consideration should be given as to how those modifications might alter outcomes.