A Novel Protocol for Reducing Intensive Care Utilization After Craniotomy.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of evidence suggesting not all craniotomy patients require postoperative intensive care. OBJECTIVE: To devise and implement a standardized protocol for craniotomy patients eligible to transition directly from the operating room to the ward-the Non-Intensive CarE (NICE) protocol. METHODS: We preoperatively identified patients undergoing elective craniotomy for simple neurosurgical procedures with age <65 yr and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class of 1, 2 or 3. Postoperative eligibility was confirmed by the surgical and anesthesia teams. Upon arrival to the ward, patients were staffed with a neuroscience nurse for hourly neurological examinations for the first 8 h. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were prospectively collected to evaluate the NICE protocol. RESULTS: From February 2018 to 2019, 63 patients were included in the NICE protocol with a median age of 46 yr and 65% female predominance. Of the operations performed, 38.1% were microvascular decompressions, 31.7% were craniotomy for tumor, 15.9% were cavernous malformation resections, and 14.3% were Chiari decompressions. No patients required transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU). Median length of stay was 2 d. There was an 11.1% overall readmission rate within the median follow-up period of 48 d. Three patients (4.8%) required reoperation at time of readmission within the follow-up period (1 postoperative subdural hematoma, 2 cerebrospinal fluid leak repair). None of these complications could have been identified with a postoperative ICU stay. CONCLUSION: In our pilot trial of the NICE protocol, no patients required postoperative transfer to the ICU.

Impartial institutions, pathogen stress and the expanding social network.

Anthropologists have documented substantial cross-society variation in people's willingness to treat strangers with impartial, universal norms versus favoring members of their local community. Researchers have proposed several adaptive accounts for these differences. One variant of the pathogen stress hypothesis predicts that people will be more likely to favor local in-group members when they are under greater infectious disease threat. The material security hypothesis instead proposes that institutions that permit people to meet their basic needs through impartial interactions with strangers reinforce a tendency toward impartiality, whereas people lacking such institutions must rely on local community members to meet their basic needs. Some studies have examined these hypotheses using self-reported preferences, but not with behavioral measures. We conducted behavioral experiments in eight diverse societies that measure individuals' willingness to favor in-group members by ignoring an impartial rule. Consistent with the material security hypothesis, members of societies enjoying better-quality government services and food security show a stronger preference for following an impartial rule over investing in their local in-group. Our data show no support for the pathogen stress hypothesis as applied to favoring in-groups and instead suggest that favoring in-group members more closely reflects a general adaptive fit with social institutions that have arisen in each society.