The current state of intensive care unit discharge practices - Results of an international survey study.

Background: Increasing pressure on limited intensive care capacities often requires a subjective assessment of a patient's discharge readiness in the absence of established Admission, Discharge, and Transfer (ADT) guidelines. To avoid suboptimal care transitions, it is important to define clear guidelines for the admission and discharge of intensive care patients and to optimize transfer processes between the intensive care unit (ICU) and lower care levels. To achieve these goals, structured insights into usual ICU discharge and transfer practices are essential. This study aimed to generate these insights by focusing on involved stakeholders, established processes, discharge criteria and tools, relevant performance metrics, and current barriers to a timely and safe discharge. Method: In 2022, a structured, web-based, anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted, aimed at practicing ICU physicians, nurses, and bed coordinators. The survey consisted of 29 questions (open, closed, multiple choice, and scales) that were divided into thematic blocks. The study was supported by several national and international societies for intensive care medicine and nursing. Results: A total of 219 participants from 40 countries (105 from Germany) participated in the survey. An overload of acute care resources with ~90% capacity utilization in the ICU and the general ward (GW) leads to not only premature but also delayed patient transfers due to a lack of available ward and intermediate care (IMC) beds. After multidisciplinary rounds within the intensive care team, the ICU clinician on duty usually makes the final transfer decision, while one-third of the panel coordinates discharge decisions across departmental boundaries. By the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, half of the hospitals had implemented ADT policies. Among these hospitals, nearly one-third of the hospitals had specific transfer criteria established, consisting primarily of vital signs and laboratory data, patient status and autonomy, and organization-specific criteria. Liaison nurses were less common but were ranked right after the required IMC capacities to bridge the care gap between the ICU and normal wards. In this study, 80% of the participants suggested that transfer planning would be easier if there was good transparency regarding the capacity utilization of lower care levels, a standardized transfer process, and improved interdisciplinary communication. Conclusion: To improve care transitions, transfer processes should be managed proactively across departments, and efforts should be made to identify and address care gaps.

[Suctioning in intubated and tracheotomized patients : A narrative review]. / Absaugung bei intubierten und tracheotomierten Patient*innen : Eine narrative Übersichtsarbeit.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal suctioning in intubated or tracheotomized critically ill patients is a daily task of various professional groups in intensive and emergency medicine; however, a German language summary of current evidence is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to develop a narrative overview of current evidence on endotracheal suctioning of intubated or tracheotomized patients in the clinical setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the databases Cinahl, Cochrane Library, Livivo, and Medline via PubMed by nurses with an academic degree. In addition, a hand search and applying the snowball principle were performed. Following a successful critical appraisal, all English and German language publications addressing endotracheal suctioning in the context of hospital care were included. RESULTS: A total of 23 full texts were included. After developing 6 main topics on endotracheal suction 19 articles were considered in the reporting. The results showed, among others, that routine deep suctioning once per shift is contraindicated and that the catheter should be advanced no more than 0.5-1 cm beyond the distal end of the tube or tracheal cannula. Closed suction catheters offer advantages, especially for staff protection, although studies are heterogeneous. Further training of staff is obligatory. CONCLUSION: Few conclusive studies on endotracheal suction could be found; however, with the available evidence initial conclusions can be drawn which should be considered in, for example, internal standard operating procedures. Further research is needed.

Guideline on positioning and early mobilisation in the critically ill by an expert panel.

A scientific panel was created consisting of 23 interdisciplinary and interprofessional experts in intensive care medicine, physiotherapy, nursing care, surgery, rehabilitative medicine, and pneumology delegated from scientific societies together with a patient representative and a delegate from the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies who advised methodological implementation. The guideline was created according to the German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF), based on The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. The topics of (early) mobilisation, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, assist devices for mobilisation, and positioning, including prone positioning, were identified as areas to be addressed and assigned to specialist expert groups, taking conflicts of interest into account. The panel formulated PICO questions (addressing the population, intervention, comparison or control group as well as the resulting outcomes), conducted a systematic literature review with abstract screening and full-text analysis and created summary tables. This was followed by grading the evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence and a risk of bias assessment. The recommendations were finalized according to GRADE and voted using an online Delphi process followed by a final hybrid consensus conference. The German long version of the guideline was approved by the professional associations. For this English version an update of the systematic review was conducted until April 2024 and recommendation adapted based on new evidence in systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. In total, 46 recommendations were developed and research gaps addressed.

[Recommendations for the specialist further training of nursing personnel on intensive care units in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: results of a modified Delphi procedure with experts]. / Empfehlungen zur Fachweiterbildung von Pflegefachpersonen der Intensivstation bei der Behandlung des Bauchaortenaneurysmas: Ergebnisse eines modifizierten Delphi-Verfahrens mit Expert:innen.

INTRODUCTION: The medical development in the previous 15 years and the changes in treatment reality of the comprehensive elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms necessitate a re-evaluation of the quality assurance guidelines of the Federal Joint Committee in Germany (QBAA-RL). In the current version this requires a specialist further training quota for nursing personnel in intensive care wards of 50%. The quota was determined in 2008 based on expert opinions, although a direct empirical evidence base for this does not exist. METHODS: Representatives from the fields of patient representation, physicians, nursing personnel and other relevant interface areas were invited to participate in a modified Delphi procedure. Following a comprehensive narrative literature search, a survey and focus group discussions with national and international experts, a total of three anonymized online-based voting rounds were carried out for which previously determined key statements were assessed with a 4­point Likert scale (totally disagree up to totally agree). In addition, the expert panel had also defined a recommendation for a minimum quota for the specialist training of nursing personnel on intensive care wards in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms, whereby an a priori agreement of 80% of the participants was defined as the consensus limit. RESULTS: Overall, 37 experts participated in the discussions and three successive voting rounds (participation rate 89%). The panel confirmed the necessity of a re-evaluation of the guideline recommendations and recommended the introduction of a shift-related minimum quota of 30% of the full-time equivalent of nursing personnel on intensive care wards and the introduction of structured promotional programs for long-term elevation of the quota. CONCLUSION: In this national Delphi procedure with medical and nursing experts as well as representatives of patients, the fundamental benefits and needs of professional specialist qualifications in the field of intensive care medicine were confirmed. The corresponding minimum quota for specialist further training of intensive care nursing personnel should generally apply without limitations to specific groups. The expert panel stipulates a shift-related minimum quota for intensive care nursing personnel with specialist training of 30% of the nursing personnel on intensive care wards and the obligatory introduction of structured and transparent promotion programs for the long-term enhancement.