Minimising haemodynamic lability during changeover of syringes infusing norepinephrine in adult critical care patients: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Arterial pressure lability is common during the process of replacing syringes used for norepinephrine infusions in critically ill patients. It is unclear if there is an optimal approach to minimise arterial pressure instability during this procedures. We investigated whether 'double pumping' changeover (DPC) or automated changeover (AC) reduced blood pressure lability in critically ill adults compared with quick syringe changeover (QC). METHODS: Patients requiring a norepinephrine infusion syringe change were randomised in a non-blinded trial undertaken in six ICUs. Randomisation was minimised by norepinephrine flow rate at inclusion and centre. The primary outcome was the frequency of increased/decreased mean arterial pressure (defined by 15 mm Hg from baseline measurements) within 15 min of switching the syringe compared with QC. RESULTS: Patients (mean age: 64 (range:18-88)) yr were randomly assigned to QC (n=95), DPC (n=95), or AC (n=96). Increased MAP was the commonest consequence of syringe changeovers. MAP variability was most frequent after DPC (89/224 changeovers; 39.7%) compared with 57/223 (25.6%) changeovers after quick syringe switch and 46/181 (25.4%) in patients randomised to receive automated changeover (P=0.001). Fewer events occurred with QC compared with DPC (P=0.002). Sensitivity analysis based on mixed models showed that performing several changeovers on a single patient had no impact. Both type of changeover and norepinephrine dose before syringe changeover were independently associated with MAP variations >15 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Quick changeover of norepinephrine syringes was associated with less blood pressure lability compared with DPC. The prevalence of MAP variations was the same between AC and QC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02304939.

Nurses' moral judgements during emergency department triage - A prospective mixed multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: In EDs, triage ensures that patients whose condition requires immediate care are prioritized while reducing overcrowding. Previous studies have described the manifestation of caregivers' moral judgements of patients in EDs. The equal treatment of patients in clinical practice presents a major issue. Studying the impact of prejudice on clinical practice in the ED setting provides an opportunity to rethink clinical tools, organizations and future training needs. Our study sought to describe the moral judgements expressed by triage nurses during admission interviews in emergency departments and to assess their impact on patient management. METHODS: An exploratory sequential mixed-method study was performed. The study was conducted between January 1, 2018, and February 18, 2018, in the EDs of three French hospitals. Five hundred and three patients and 79 triage nurses participated in the study. Audio recordings, observations and written handover reports made by nurses during admission triage interviews were analyzed with a view to discerning whether moral judgements were expressed in them. We studied the impact of moral judgements on patient management in the emergency department. RESULTS: Abstract Moral judgements were made in 70% of the triage situations studied (n=351/503). They could be classified in seven categories. Patients were more likely to be subjected to moral judgements if they were over 75 years old, visibly disabled or if they had visible signs of alcohol intoxication. Being subjected to moral judgement was associated with differential treatment, including assignment of a triage score that differed from the theoretical triage score. CONCLUSION: More than two thirds of patients admitted to EDs were triaged using moral criteria. Patients who were morally judged at the admission interview were more likely to be treated differently.

[Measuring the sources of discomfort in patients in intensive care]. / Mesurer les sources d'inconfort des patients en réanimation.

A study carried out in 2014 in a hospital focused on the sources of discomfort of patients in intensive care. Resulting in raised awareness across all disciplines, it has enabled the actions to be undertaken to improve professional practices to be prioritised, in a culture of compassionate care.