Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) illness continues to affect national and global hospital systems, with a particularly high burden to intensive care unit (ICU) beds and resources. It is critical to identify patients who initially do not require ICU resources but subsequently rapidly deteriorate. We investigated patient populations during COVID-19 at times of full or near-full (surge) and non-full (non-surge) hospital capacity to determine the effect on those who may need a higher level of care or deteriorate quickly, defined as requiring a transfer to ICU within 24 hours of admission to a non-ICU level of care, and to provide further knowledge on this high-risk group of patients. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of a single health system comprising four emergency departments and three tertiary hospitals in New York, NY, across two different time periods (during surge and non-surge inpatient volume times during the COVID-19 pandemic). We queried the electronic health record for all patients admitted to a non-ICU setting with unexpected ICU transfer (UIT) within 24 hours of admission. We then made a comparison between adult patients with confirmed coronavirus 2019 and without during surge and non-surge time periods. RESULTS:During the surge period, there was a total of 86 UITs in a one-month period. Of those, 60 were COVID-19 positive patients who had a mortality rate of 63.3%, and 26 were COVID-19 negative with a 30.8 % mortality rate. During the non-surge period, there was a total of 112 UITs; of those, 24 were COVID-19 positive with a 37.5% mortality rate, and 90 were COVID-19 negative with a 11.1% mortality rate. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:During the surge, the mortality rate for both COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients experiencing an unexpected ICU transfer was significantly higher.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Sepsis is a common cause of emergency department (ED) presentation and hospital admission, accounting for a disproportionate number of deaths each year relative to its incidence. Sepsis outcomes have improved with increased recognition and treatment standards promoted by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Due to delay in recognition and other barriers, sepsis bundle compliance remains low nationally. We hypothesised that a targeted education intervention regarding use of an electronic health record (EHR) tool for identification and management of sepsis would lead to increased EHR tool utilisation and increased sepsis bundle compliance. METHODS:We created a multidisciplinary quality improvement team to provide training and feedback on EHR tool utilisation within our ED. A prospective evaluation of the rate of EHR tool utilisation was monitored from June through December 2020. Simultaneously, we conducted two retrospective cohort studies comparing overall sepsis bundle compliance for patients when EHR tool was used versus not used. The first cohort was all patients with intention-to-treat for any sepsis severity. The second cohort of patients included adult patients with time of recognition of sepsis in the ED admitted with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock. RESULTS:EHR tool utilisation increased from 23.3% baseline prior to intervention to 87.2% during the study. In the intention-to-treat cohort, there was a statistically significant difference in compliance between EHR tool utilisation versus no utilisation in overall bundle compliance (p<0.001) and for several individual components: initial lactate (p=0.009), repeat lactate (p=0.001), timely antibiotics (p=0.031), blood cultures before antibiotics (p=0.001), initial fluid bolus (p<0.001) and fluid reassessment (p<0.001). In the severe sepsis and septic shock cohort, EHR tool use increased from 71.2% pre-intervention to 85.0% post-intervention (p=0.008). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:With training, feedback and EHR optimisation, an EHR tool can be successfully integrated into current workflows and appears to increase sepsis bundle compliance.

According to the World Health Organization, the three leading causes of mortality in lower-middle-income countries (LMIC) are ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, and lower respiratory infections (LRIs), causing 111.8, 68.8, and 51.5 annual deaths per 100,000, respectively. Due to barriers to healthcare, patients frequently present in critical stages of these diseases. Measured implementations in critical care in LMIC have been published; however, the literature has not been formally reviewed. We performed a systematic review of the literature indexed in PubMed as of October 2017. Abstracts were limited to human studies in English, French, and Spanish, conducted in LMIC, and containing quantitative data on acute care of IHD, stroke, and LRI. The search resulted in 4994 unique abstracts. Through multiple rounds of screening using criteria determined a priori, 161 manuscripts were identified: 38 for IHD, 20 for stroke, 26 for adult LRI, and 78 for pediatric LRI. These studies, predominantly from Asia, demonstrate successful diagnostic and treatment measures used in providing acute care for patients in LMIC. Given that, only four manuscripts originated in Central or South America, original research from these areas is lacking. IHD, stroke, and LRIs are significant causes of mortality, especially in LMIC. Diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for IHD (monitoring, medications, thrombolytics, percutaneous intervention, coronary artery bypass graft), stroke (therapeutic hypothermia, medications, and thrombolytics), and LRI (oxygen saturation measurement, diagnostic ultrasound, administration of oxygen, appropriate antibiotics, and other medications) have been studied in LMIC and published.

HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVE:Unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) transfer (UIT) within 48 hours of emergency department (ED) admission increases morbidity and mortality. We hypothesized that a majority of UITs do not have critical interventions (CrIs) and that CrI is associated with worse outcomes. OBJECTIVE:The objective of the study is to characterize all UITs (including patients who died before ICU transfer), the proportion with CrI, and the effect of having CrI on mortality. DESIGN/METHODS:This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of UITs within 48 hours from 2008 to 2013 at an urban academic medical center and included patients 18 years or older without advanced directives (ADs). Critical intervention was defined by modified Delphi process. Data included demographics, comorbidities, reasons for UIT, length of stay, CrIs, and mortality. We calculated descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS:A total of 837 (0.76%) of 108 732 floor admissions from the ED had a UIT within 48 hours; 86 admitted patients died before ICU. We excluded 23 ADs, 117 postoperative transfers, 177 planned ICU transfers, and 4 with missing data. Of the 516 remaining, 65% (95% CI, 61%-69%) received a CrI. Unplanned ICU transfer reasons are as follows: 33 medical errors, 90 disease processes not present on arrival, and 393 clinical deteriorations. Mortality was 10.5% (95% CI, 8%-14%), and mean length of stay was 258 hours (95% CI, 233-283) for those with CrI, whereas the mortality was 2.8% (95% CI, 1%-6%) and mean length of stay was 177 hours (95% CI, 157-197) for those without CrI. CONCLUSIONS:Unplanned ICU transfer is rare, and only 65% had a CrI. Those with CrI had increased morbidity and mortality.