MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 134 postgraduate trainees from the departments of general surgery (Surgical), orthopaedic surgery (Ortho), otorhinolaryngology (ENT), obstetrics and gynaecology (OBGYN), as well as anaesthesiology and intensive care (Anaesth) were recruited. A validated questionnaire was used to assess awareness and knowledge. All participants attended a medical-education session and completed the questionnaire as preassessment and postassessment. Data were analysed, and comparisons between disciplines were conducted.
RESULTS: The trainees' awareness of LAST was overall poor at preassessment which improved almost 6-folds at postassessment. Surprisingly, only 20 (45.5%) participants from the anaesthesiology group had awareness of LAST at preassessment, and none of the participants were from surgical, orthopaedic, and obstetrics and gynaecology departments. Preassessment scores were significantly higher in the anaesth group as compared to all other groups; with a difference in the average score for Anaesth vs Surgical of 3.46 (95%, CI:2.17, 4.74), Anaesth vs Ortho of 3.64 (95%, CI:2.64, 4.64), Anaesth vs ENT of 3.43 (95%, CI:2.20, 4.67), and Anaesth vs OBGYN of 6.93 (95%, CI:5.64, 8.21). However, there was no significant difference of awareness scores between all participants at postassessment scores.
CONCLUSION: The overall level of awareness was poor. However, the implementation of an education session significantly improved the knowledge and awareness across all disciplines.
METHODS: This was a randomized crossover trial in a simulated clinical setting to compare the SÜPEVAC unit with standard hospital wall suction. Twenty-two fellows of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, or the College of Intensive Care Medicine were recruited. Outcomes were assessed via a structured survey and measuring the time to view the glottis.
RESULTS: This study found there was no significant difference between the SÜPEVAC unit and wall suction with regard to suction time (P = .762; 95% confidence interval, -0.683 to 0.338) or qualitative assessment via the survey.
CONCLUSIONS: The SÜPEVAC unit is comparable with wall suction in a clinical setting. Further research is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Having a loved one in the ICU is a stressful experience, which may cause psychological distress for family members. Depression, anxiety and stress are the common forms of psychological distress associated with ICU patient's family members. Directly or indirectly, psychological distress may have behavioural or physiological impacts on the family members and ICU patient's recovery.
DESIGN: The study was based on the five-stage methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley (International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2005, 8, 19) and were guided by the PRISMA-ScR Checklist.
METHODS: A comprehensive and systematic search was performed in five electronic databases, namely the Scopus, Web of Sciences, CINAHL® Complete @EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect and MEDLINE. Reference lists from the screened full-text articles were reviewed.
RESULTS: From a total of 1252 literature screened, 22 studies published between 2010-2019 were included in the review. From those articles, four key themes were identified: (a) Prevalence of psychological distress; (b) Factors affecting family members; (c) Symptoms of psychological distress; and (d) Impact of psychological distress.
CONCLUSIONS: Family members with a critically ill patient in ICU show high levels of anxiety, depression and stress. They had moderate to major symptoms of psychological distress that negatively impacted both the patient and family members.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The review contributed further insights on psychological distress among ICU patient's family members and proposed psychological interventions that could positively impact the family well-being and improve the patients' recovery.
METHODS: This international, investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, single-blinded, randomised trial was undertaken in 85 intensive care units (ICUs) across 16 countries. We enrolled nutritionally high-risk adults (≥18 years) undergoing mechanical ventilation to compare prescribing high-dose protein (≥2·2 g/kg per day) with usual dose protein (≤1·2 g/kg per day) started within 96 h of ICU admission and continued for up to 28 days or death or transition to oral feeding. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to high-dose protein or usual dose protein, stratified by site. As site personnel were involved in both prescribing and delivering protein dose, it was not possible to blind clinicians, but patients were not made aware of the treatment assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was time-to-discharge-alive from hospital up to 60 days after ICU admission and the secondary outcome was 60-day morality. Patients were analysed in the group to which they were randomly assigned regardless of study compliance, although patients who dropped out of the study before receiving the study intervention were excluded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03160547.
FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2018, and Dec 3, 2021, 1329 patients were randomised and 1301 (97·9%) were included in the analysis (645 in the high-dose protein group and 656 in usual dose group). By 60 days after randomisation, the cumulative incidence of alive hospital discharge was 46·1% (95 CI 42·0%-50·1%) in the high-dose compared with 50·2% (46·0%-54·3%) in the usual dose protein group (hazard ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·07; p=0·27). The 60-day mortality rate was 34·6% (222 of 642) in the high dose protein group compared with 32·1% (208 of 648) in the usual dose protein group (relative risk 1·08, 95% CI 0·92-1·26). There appeared to be a subgroup effect with higher protein provision being particularly harmful in patients with acute kidney injury and higher organ failure scores at baseline.
INTERPRETATION: Delivery of higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve the time-to-discharge-alive from hospital and might have worsened outcomes for patients with acute kidney injury and high organ failure scores.
FUNDING: None.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to summarize and appraise the methodological quality of primary studies on interventions for management of occupational stress among intensive and critical care nurses.
METHODS: This review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify primary studies that assessed the effectiveness of interventions in managing occupational stress among intensive and critical care nurses using multiple databases from January 2009 to June 2019.
RESULTS: Twelve studies published between 2011 and 2019 were eligible for inclusion. These included studies were classified as being of good or fair quality. The consensus across the included studies was that, compared with control condition, cognitive-behavioural skills training and mindfulness-based intervention were more effective in reducing occupational stress among intensive and critical care unit nurses.
CONCLUSION: Further research should focus on methodologically strong studies by blinding the outcome assessors, using Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) design with an active control group, using standardized assessment tools, and reporting enough details about the stress management intervention-related adverse events.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review demonstrates the need for high methodological quality studies to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of stress management interventions before it can be recommended for use in clinical practice to reduce stress in intensive and critical care unit nurses. In addition, attention should be given to developing research protocols that place more emphasis on interventions aimed at the organization level to address the growing problem of occupational stress among intensive and critical care nurses.
DESIGN: We conducted a modified three-round eDelphi survey with pediatric critical care nurses in Asia. The eDelphi technique has been extensively used within health research to achieve a common viewpoint from experts using questionnaires to gather research priorities. In round 1, participants were asked to list three to five research topics that they deemed important. These topics were thematically analyzed and categorized into a questionnaire. Participants rated the research topics in round 2 on a 6-point scale (1 = not important to 6 = extremely important). In round 3, the same questionnaire was used with addition of the calculated mean scores from round 2 for each topic. Research topics ranked among the top 10 were considered extremely important.
SETTINGS: Twenty-two PICUs in eight Asian countries.
SUBJECTS: Clinical nurses, managers, educators, and researchers.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In round 1, 146 PICU nurses across eight countries provided 520 research topics. Topics from round 1 were categorized into seven domains with 52 research topics. Prioritized research topics included early recognition of patient deterioration (mean 5.58 ± 0.61), prevention of healthcare-associated infections (mean 5.47 ± 0.70), and interventions to reduce compassion fatigue (mean 5.45 ± 0.80). The top three research domains were end-of-life care (mean 5.34 ± 0.68), professionalism (mean 5.34 ± 0.69), and management of pain, sedation, and delirium (5.32 ± 0.72).
CONCLUSIONS: This first PICU nursing research prioritization exercise within Asia identified key nursing research themes that should be prioritized and provide a framework for future collaborative studies.
METHODS: We conducted an international, retrospective cohort study using 2019 and 2020 data from 11 national clinical quality registries covering 15 countries. Non-COVID-19 admissions in 2020 were compared with all admissions in 2019, prepandemic. The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and standardised mortality ratio (SMR). Analyses were stratified by the country income level(s) of each registry.
FINDINGS: Among 1 642 632 non-COVID-19 admissions, there was an increase in ICU mortality between 2019 (9.3%) and 2020 (10.4%), OR=1.15 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.17, p<0.001). Increased mortality was observed in middle-income countries (OR 1.25 95% CI 1.23 to 1.26), while mortality decreased in high-income countries (OR=0.96 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Hospital mortality and SMR trends for each registry were consistent with the observed ICU mortality findings. The burden of COVID-19 was highly variable, with COVID-19 ICU patient-days per bed ranging from 0.4 to 81.6 between registries. This alone did not explain the observed non-COVID-19 mortality changes.
INTERPRETATION: Increased ICU mortality occurred among non-COVID-19 patients during the pandemic, driven by increased mortality in middle-income countries, while mortality decreased in high-income countries. The causes for this inequity are likely multi-factorial, but healthcare spending, policy pandemic responses, and ICU strain may play significant roles.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), and platelet levels of children with moderate to severe TBI to identify predictors of early coagulopathy and study the association with clinical outcomes.
METHODS: Using the Pediatric Acute and Critical Care Medicine Asian Network (PACCMAN) TBI retrospective cohort, we identified patients <16 yr old with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤13. We compared PT, APTT, platelets, and outcomes between children with isolated TBI and multiple trauma with TBI. We performed logistic regressions to identify predictors of early coagulopathy and study the association with mortality and poor functional outcomes.
RESULTS: Among 370 children analyzed, 53/370 (14.3%) died and 127/370 (34.3%) had poor functional outcomes. PT was commonly deranged in both isolated TBI (53/173, 30.6%) and multiple trauma (101/197, 51.3%). Predictors for early coagulopathy were young age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-0.99, P = .023), GCS