Early goal-directed resuscitation of patients with septic shock: current evidence and future directions.

Severe sepsis and septic shock are among the leading causes of mortality in the intensive care unit. Over a decade ago, early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) emerged as a novel approach for reducing sepsis mortality and was incorporated into guidelines published by the international Surviving Sepsis Campaign. In addition to requiring early detection of sepsis and prompt initiation of antibiotics, the EGDT protocol requires invasive patient monitoring to guide resuscitation with intravenous fluids, vasopressors, red cell transfusions, and inotropes. The effect of these measures on patient outcomes, however, remains controversial. Recently, three large randomized trials were undertaken to re-examine the effect of EGDT on morbidity and mortality: the ProCESS trial in the United States, the ARISE trial in Australia and New Zealand, and the ProMISe trial in England. These trials showed that EGDT did not significantly decrease mortality in patients with septic shock compared with usual care. In particular, whereas early administration of antibiotics appeared to increase survival, tailoring resuscitation to static measurements of central venous pressure and central venous oxygen saturation did not confer survival benefit to most patients. In the following review, we examine these findings as well as other evidence from recent randomized trials of goal-directed resuscitation. We also discuss future areas of research and emerging paradigms in sepsis trials.

Review of the Basics of Cognitive Error in Emergency Medicine: Still No Easy Answers.

Emergency physicians (EP) make clinical decisions multiple times daily. In some instances, medical errors occur due to flaws in the complex process of clinical reasoning and decision-making. Cognitive error can be difficult to identify and is equally difficult to prevent. To reduce the risk of patient harm resulting from errors in critical thinking, it has been proposed that we train physicians to understand and maintain awareness of their thought process, to identify error-prone clinical situations, to recognize predictable vulnerabilities in thinking, and to employ strategies to avert cognitive errors. The first step to this approach is to gain an understanding of how physicians make decisions and what conditions may predispose to faulty decision-making. We review the dual-process theory, which offers a framework to understand both intuitive and analytical reasoning, and to identify the necessary conditions to support optimal cognitive processing. We also discuss systematic deviations from normative reasoning known as cognitive biases, which were first described in cognitive psychology and have been identified as a contributing factor to errors in medicine. Training physicians in common biases and strategies to mitigate their effect is known as debiasing. A variety of debiasing techniques have been proposed for use by clinicians. We sought to review the current evidence supporting the effectiveness of these strategies in the clinical setting. This discussion of improving clinical reasoning is relevant to medical educators as well as practicing EPs engaged in continuing medical education.

A Handoffs Software Led to Fewer Errors of Omission and Better Provider Satisfaction: A Randomized Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted communication is shown to prevent critical omissions ("errors") in the handoff process. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to study this effect and related provider satisfaction, using a standardized software. METHODS: Fourteen internal medicine house officers staffed 6 days and 1 cross-covering teams were randomized to either the intervention group or control, employing usual handoff, so that handoff information was exchanged only between same-group subjects (daily, for 28 days). RESULTS: In the intervention group, fewer omissions (among those studied) occurred intravenous access (17 versus 422, P < 0.001), code status (1 versus 158, P < 0.001), diet/nothing per mouth (28 versus 477, P < 0.001), and deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis (17 versus 284, P < 0.001); duration to compose handoff was similar; and physicians perceived less workload adjusted for patient census and provider characteristics (P = 0.004) as well as better handoff quality (P < 0.001) and clarity (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was associated with fewer errors and superior provider satisfaction.

Acceptability and Necessity of Training for Optimal Personal Protective Equipment Use.

Healthcare workers routinely self-contaminate even when using personal protective equipment. Observations of donning/ doffing practices on inpatient units along with surveys were used to assess the need for a personal protective equipment training program. In contrast to low perceived risk, observed doffing behaviors demonstrate significant personal protective equipment technique deficits. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:226-229.

Correlation of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and electronic medical record alerts with incidence among surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism events are potentially preventable adverse events. We investigated the effect of interruptions and delays in pharmacologic prophylaxis on venous thromboembolism incidence. Additionally, we evaluated the utility of electronic medical record alerts for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. METHODS: Venous thromboembolisms were identified in surgical patients retrospectively through Core Measure Venous ThromboEmbolism-6-6 and Patient Safety Indicator 12 between November 2013 and March 2015. Venous thromboembolism pharmacologic prophylaxis and prescriber response to electronic medical record alerts were recorded prospectively. Prophylaxis was categorized as continuous, delayed, interrupted, other, and none. RESULTS: Among 10,318 surgical admissions, there were 131 venous thromboembolisms; 23.7% of the venous thromboembolisms occurred with optimal continuous prophylaxis. Prophylaxis, length of stay, age, and transfer from another hospital were associated with increased venous thromboembolism incidence. Compared with continuous prophylaxis, interruptions were associated with 3 times greater odds of venous thromboembolism. Delays were associated with 2 times greater odds of venous thromboembolism. Electronic medical record alerts occurred in 45.7% of the encounters and were associated with a 2-fold increased venous thromboembolism incidence. Focus groups revealed procedures as the main contributor to interruptions, and workflow disruption as the main limitation of the electronic medical record alerts. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary strategies to decrease delays and interruptions in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and optimization of electronic medical record tools for prophylaxis may help decrease rates of preventable venous thromboembolism.