Sepsis best practices: Definitions, guidelines, and updates.

ABSTRACT: Sepsis remains a complex and costly disease with high morbidity and mortality. This article discusses Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, highlighting the 2021 Surviving Sepsis International guidelines as well as the regulatory requirements and reimbursement for the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) measure.

An Official American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline: Mechanical Ventilation in Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: This document provides evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the use of mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel conducted systematic reviews and metaanalyses of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations. RESULTS: For all patients with ARDS, the recommendation is strong for mechanical ventilation using lower tidal volumes (4-8 ml/kg predicted body weight) and lower inspiratory pressures (plateau pressure < 30 cm H2O) (moderate confidence in effect estimates). For patients with severe ARDS, the recommendation is strong for prone positioning for more than 12 h/d (moderate confidence in effect estimates). For patients with moderate or severe ARDS, the recommendation is strong against routine use of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (high confidence in effect estimates) and conditional for higher positive end-expiratory pressure (moderate confidence in effect estimates) and recruitment maneuvers (low confidence in effect estimates). Additional evidence is necessary to make a definitive recommendation for or against the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with severe ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on selected ventilatory interventions for adult patients with ARDS. Clinicians managing patients with ARDS should personalize decisions for their patients, particularly regarding the conditional recommendations in this guideline.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Understanding the Evolving Pathophysiology of Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Adult Nursing Management.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in December 2019 and quickly became a global pandemic. The understanding of the pathophysiology, treatment, and management of the disease has evolved since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020. COVID-19 can be complicated by immune system dysfunction, lung injury with hypoxemia, acute kidney injury, and coagulopathy. The treatment and management of COVID-19 is based on the severity of illness, ranging from asymptomatic to severe and often life-threatening disease. The 3 main recommended medication classes include antivirals, immunomodulators, and anticoagulants. Other supportive therapies include ensuring adequate oxygenation, mechanical ventilation, and prone positioning.

Professional accountability in the tele-ICU: the CCRN-E.

The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) is the world's largest specialty nursing organization. The AACN Certification Corporation provides credentialing to validate nursing practice in acute and critical care. The advent of tele-ICU nursing added a challenge to the application of certification in a new specialty area. Nurses working in a tele-ICU have many years of experience in hands-on acute or critical care nursing at the bedside. In their role as tele-ICU nurses, these skills are applied to the assessment, evaluation, and decision support of care for critically ill patients in various acute and critical care units from remote locations connected directly to the ICU through high-speed audio and video technology. This article outlines the journey of the advent of the CCRN-E (registered nurse in critical care) credential and its place in the new specialty of tele-ICU nursing practice.

Placement of Nasogastric Feeding Tube and Postinsertion Care Review.

Insertion and postinsertion care of enteral nasogastric feeding tubes are common procedures in the United States, with more than 1.2 million temporary nasogastric feeding tubes inserted annually. Although there are some evidence-based practice guidelines and recommendations for care of these tubes, variation in practice still exists. Additional research is needed to determine the best methodology for insertion and confirmation of nasogastric feeding tubes. Routine competency and training on feeding tube insertion, enteral nutrition, and postinsertion care is crucial to prevent patient safety events. Variable results have been reported with different technologies; however, radiographic confirmation remains the criterion standard. It is important that health care institutions develop standardized procedures for insertion and confirmation on the basis of evidence-based practices to minimize risks and complications from temporary nasogastric feeding tubes.

Nursing Implications of the Updated 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines.

Sepsis is a life-threatening illness that affects millions of people worldwide. Early recognition and timely treatment are essential for decreasing mortality from sepsis. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021, the fifth iteration of the guidelines, was released in October 2021 and includes 93 recommendations for the management of sepsis. The evidence-based guidelines include recommendations and rationales for screening and early treatment, initial resuscitation, mean arterial pressure targets, admission to intensive care, management of infection, hemodynamic monitoring, ventilation, and additional therapies. A new section addresses long-term outcomes and goals of care. This article presents several recommendations, changes, and updates in the 2021 guidelines and highlights the important contributions nurses have in delivering timely and evidence-based care to patients with sepsis. Recommendations may be for or against an intervention, according to the evidence. Although many recommendations are unchanged, several new recommendations directly affect nursing care and may require specialized training (eg, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). The newest section, long-term outcomes and goals of care, is aimed at using available resources to provide care that is aligned with the patient and the patient's family through goals-of-care discussions and shared decision-making. Interventions aimed at improving recovery across the continuum of care should include attention to long-term outcomes. Nurses are essential in identifying patients with sepsis, administering and assessing response to treatment, supporting the patient and family, and limiting sequelae from sepsis. This article highlights the 2021 recommendations that influence nursing care for patients with sepsis.

Awake Self-Prone Positioning: Implementation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning is a well-known beneficial intervention for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. As the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, hospitals rapidly adapted prone positioning for acutely ill patients into a new process: awake self-prone positioning. Could a large health care system safely and rapidly implement awake self-prone positioning in COVID-19 units to prevent respiratory failure from progressing among a surge of inpatients? REVIEW OF EVIDENCE: The team extensively reviewed the literature. Using evidence from 22 case reports, peer-reviewed standards, and studies, they developed an awake self-prone positioning guideline. IMPLEMENTATION: The guideline was implemented in April 2020 in critical care and COVID-19 units. Multimodal education included a concise guideline and real-time support from intensive care unit nurses, clinical nurse specialists, and nursing professional development specialists. EVALUATION: Awake self-prone positioning was a new procedure, and relevant data were obtained from the electronic medical record. From March 18 to August 5, 2020, 1000 COVID-19-related admissions occurred; 272 patients had a high-flow nasal cannula, 111 (41%) of whom had documentation of awake self-prone positioning. SUSTAINABILITY: This guideline is now an established part of COVID-19 care and has been integrated into practice in units caring for patients with the disease. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses adapted quickly to using awake self-prone positioning as a plan of care for hypoxic patients. This practice may help hospitals adjust care delivery for these patients and effectively maintain patients in non-intensive care units.

Improving care of the sepsis patient.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, Christiana Care Health System (Christiana Care), a 1,100-bed tertiary care facility, used the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines as the foundation for an independent initiative to reduce the mortality rate by at least 25%. METHODS: In 2004, an interdisciplinary sepsis team developed a process for rapidly recognizing at-risk patients; evaluating a patient's clinical status; and providing appropriate, timely therapy in three major areas of sepsis care; recognition of the sepsis patient, resuscitation priorities, and intensive care management. The Sepsis Alert program, which did not require additional staffing, was developed and implemented in 10 months. The Sepsis Alert packet included a care management guideline, a treatment algorithm, an emergency department treatment order set, and multiple adjuncts to streamline patient identification and management. RESULTS: Introduction of sepsis resuscitation and critical care management standards led to a 49.4% decrease in mortality rates (p < .0001), a 34.0% decrease in average length of hospital stay (p < .0002), and a 188.2% increase in the proportion of patients discharged to home (p < .0001) when the historic control group is compared with the postimplementation group from January 2005 through December 2007. DISCUSSION: An integrated leadership team, using existing resources, transformed frontline clinical practice by providers from multiple disciplines to reduce mortality in the population of patients with sepsis.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Prone Positioning.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome continues to have high morbidity and mortality despite more than 50 years of research. The Berlin definition in 2012 established risk stratification based on degree of hypoxemia and the use of positive end-expiratory pressure. The use of prone positioning as a treatment modality has been studied for more than 40 years, with recent studies showing an improvement in oxygenation and decreased mortality. The studies also provide evidence to support the methodology and length of treatment time. Recent guidelines include several ventilator strategies for acute respiratory distress syndrome, including prone positioning. Protocols and procedures discussed in this article ensure successful prone repositioning and prevention of complications related to the procedure itself.

Reducing Use of Restraints in Intensive Care Units: A Quality Improvement Project.

BACKGROUND: Use of physical restrainst is scrutinized in intensive care units today. Usage rates for the 5 intensive care units in the Christiana Care Health Services, Newark, Delaware, were higher than the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators mean rate of 9.61% to 15.43% for many months during fiscal years 2013 and 2014. OBJECTIVE: To reduce and sustain the restraint rates to less than the national database mean rates for all 5 intensive care units. METHODS: A quality improvement process was used that included forming a multiunit restraint collaborative; reviewing restraint data, including self-extubation rates; surveying staff nurses to examine alignment with evidence-based practice; and selecting a new restraint-alternative product. RESULTS: All 5 intensive care units were able to successfully decrease restraint rates to less than the national database mean for the majority of the months since the start of the restraint collaborative in September 2012. CONCLUSION: Use of a restraint collaborative with subsequent adoption of restraint alternatives led to a decrease in restraint rates for the 5 intensive care units to less than the national database mean, enabled sustained success, and helped align nurses' beliefs with evidence-based practice.

Respiratory Compromise as a New Paradigm for the Care of Vulnerable Hospitalized Patients.

Acute respiratory compromise describes a deterioration in respiratory function with a high likelihood of rapid progression to respiratory failure and death. Identifying patients at risk for respiratory compromise coupled with monitoring of patients who have developed respiratory compromise might allow earlier interventions to prevent or mitigate further decompensation. The National Association for the Medical Direction of Respiratory Care (NAMDRC) organized a workshop meeting with representation from many national societies to address the unmet needs of respiratory compromise from a clinical practice perspective. Respiratory compromise may arise de novo or may complicate preexisting lung disease. The group identified distinct subsets of respiratory compromise that present similar opportunities for early detection and useful intervention to prevent respiratory failure. The subtypes were characterized by the pathophysiological mechanisms they had in common: impaired control of breathing, impaired airway protection, parenchymal lung disease, increased airway resistance, hydrostatic pulmonary edema, and right-ventricular failure. Classification of acutely ill respiratory patients into one or more of these categories may help in selecting the screening and monitoring strategies that are most appropriate for the patient's particular pathophysiology. Standardized screening and monitoring practices for patients with similar mechanisms of deterioration may enhance the ability to predict respiratory failure early and prevent its occurrence.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012". DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Clinical comparison of automatic, noninvasive measurements of blood pressure in the forearm and upper arm with the patient supine or with the head of the bed raised 45 degrees: a follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive measurement of blood pressure in the forearm is used when the upper arm is inaccessible and/or when available blood pressure cuffs do not fit a patient's arm. Evidence supporting this practice is limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare noninvasive measurements of blood pressure in the forearm and upper arm of medical-surgical inpatients positioned supine and with the head of the bed raised 45 degrees . METHODS: Cuff size was selected on the basis of forearm and upper arm circumference and manufacturers' recommendations. With a Welch Allyn Vital Signs 420 Series monitor, blood pressures were measured in the forearm and then in the upper arm of 221 supine patients with their arms resting at their sides. Patients were repositioned with the head of the bed elevated 45 degrees and after 2 minutes, blood pressures were measured in the upper arm and then the forearm. Starting position was alternated on subsequent subjects. RESULTS: Paired t tests revealed significant differences between systolic and diastolic blood pressures measured in the upper arm and forearm with patients supine and with the head of the bed elevated 45 degrees . The Bland-Altman procedure revealed that the distances between the mean values and the limits of agreement were from 15 to 33 mm Hg for individual subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive measurements of blood pressure in the forearm and upper arm cannot be interchanged in medical-surgical patients who are supine or in patients with the head of the bed elevated 45 degrees .

Challenges in Sepsis Care: New Sepsis Definitions and Fluid Resuscitation Beyond the Central Venous Pressure.

There are two important recent changes in sepsis care. The first key change is the 2016 Sepsis-3 definitions from the recent consensus workgroup with new sepsis and septic shock definitions. Useful tools for assessing patients that have a greater risk of mortality include Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) in intensive care units and quick SOFA outside intensive care units. The second change involves management of fluid resuscitation and measures of volume responsiveness. Measures such as blood pressure and central venous pressure are not reliable. Fluid challenges and responsiveness should be based on stroke volume change of greater than 10%.

Using the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program model for sustained reduction in hospital infections.

BACKGROUND: Prompted by the high number of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), our institution joined the national On the CUSP: Stop BSI initiative. We not only report the significant impact that the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) had in reducing CLABSI, but also report catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in 2 intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: At our community-based academic health care system, 2 ICUs implemented CUSP tools and developed local interventions to reduce CLABSI and other safety problems. We measured CLABSI, CAUTI, and VAP during baseline, the CUSP period, and a post-CUSP period. RESULTS: CLABSIs decreased from 3.9 per 1,000 catheter days at baseline to 1.2 during the CUSP period to 0.6 during the post-CUSP period (rate ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-0.35). CAUTIs decreased from 2.4 per 1,000 patient days to 1.2 during the post-CUSP period (rate ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). VAP rate decreased from 2.7 per 1,000 ventilator days to 1.6 during the CUSP and post-CUSP periods (rate ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.30-1.10). Device utilization decreased significantly in both ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of CUSP was associated with significant decreases in CLABSI, CAUTI, and VAP. The CUSP model, allowing for implementation of evidence-based practices and engagement of frontline staff, creates sustainable improvements that reach far beyond the initial targeted problem.

Clinical comparison of automatic, noninvasive measurements of blood pressure in the forearm and upper arm.

BACKGROUND: When the upper arm (area from shoulder to elbow) is inaccessible and/or a standard-sized blood pressure cuff does not fit, some healthcare workers use the forearm to measure blood pressure. OBJECTIVE: To compare automatic noninvasive measurements of blood pressure in the upper arm and forearm. METHODS: A descriptive, correlational comparison study was conducted in the emergency department of a 1071-bed teaching hospital. Subjects were 204 English-speaking patients 6 to 91 years old in medically stable condition who had entered the department on foot or by wheelchair and who had no exclusions to using their left upper extremity. A Welch Allyn Vital Signs 420 series monitor was used to measure blood pressure in the left upper arm and forearm with the subject seated and the upper arm or forearm at heart level. RESULTS: Pearson r correlation coefficients between measurements in the upper arm and forearm were 0.88 for systolic blood pressure and 0.76 for diastolic blood pressure (P < .001 for both). Mean systolic pressures, but not mean diastolic pressures, in the upper arm and forearm differed significantly (t = 2.07, P = .04). A Bland-Altman analysis indicated that the distances between the mean values and the limits of agreement for the 2 sites ranged from 15 mm Hg (mean arterial pressure) to 18.4 mm Hg (systolic pressure). CONCLUSIONS: Despite strict attention to correct cuff size and placement of the upper arm or forearm at heart level, measurements of blood pressure obtained noninvasively in the arm and forearm of seated patients in stable condition are not interchangeable.