Searched for: in-biosketch:true
person:nunnam01
A Smartphone-based Decision Support Tool Improves Test Performance Concerning Application of the Guidelines for Managing Regional Anesthesia in the Patient Receiving Antithrombotic or Thrombolytic Therapy
McEvoy, Matthew D; Hand, William R; Stiegler, Marjorie P; DiLorenzo, Amy N; Ehrenfeld, Jesse M; Moran, Kenneth R; Lekowski, Robert; Nunnally, Mark E; Manning, Erin L; Shi, Yaping; Shotwell, Matthew S; Gupta, Rajnish K; Corey, John M; Schell, Randall M
BACKGROUND: The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) consensus statement on regional anesthesia in the patient receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy is the standard for evaluation and management of these patients. The authors hypothesized that an electronic decision support tool (eDST) would improve test performance compared with native physician behavior concerning the application of this guideline. METHODS: Anesthesiology trainees and faculty at 8 institutions participated in a prospective, randomized trial in which they completed a 20-question test involving clinical scenarios related to the ASRA guidelines. The eDST group completed the test using an iOS app programmed to contain decision logic and content of the ASRA guidelines. The control group completed the test by using any resource in addition to the app. A generalized linear mixed-effects model was used to examine the effect of the intervention. RESULTS: After obtaining institutional review board's approval and informed consent, 259 participants were enrolled and randomized (eDST = 122; control = 137). The mean score was 92.4 +/- 6.6% in the eDST group and 68.0 +/- 15.8% in the control group (P < 0.001). eDST use increased the odds of selecting correct answers (7.8; 95% CI, 5.7 to 10.7). Most control group participants (63%) used some cognitive aid during the test, and they scored higher than those who tested from memory alone (76 +/- 15% vs. 57 +/- 18%, P < 0.001). There was no difference in time to completion of the test (P = 0.15) and no effect of training level (P = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: eDST use improved application of the ASRA guidelines compared with the native clinician behavior in a testing environment.
PMID: 26513023
ISSN: 1528-1175
CID: 1875682
Refining the Odds
Nunnally, Mark E
PMID: 26579644
ISSN: 1526-7598
CID: 1875692
Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Management of Conflicts of Interest: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care
Morrison, Laurie J; Gent, Lana M; Lang, Eddy; Nunnally, Mark E; Parker, Melissa J; Callaway, Clifton W; Nadkarni, Vinay M; Fernandez, Antonio R; Billi, John E; Egan, Jonathan R; Griffin, Russell E; Shuster, Michael; Hazinski, Mary Fran
PMID: 26472990
ISSN: 1524-4539
CID: 1875702
The incidence and risk factors for perioperative cardiac arrest observed in the national anesthesia clinical outcomes registry
Nunnally, Mark E; O'Connor, Michael F; Kordylewski, Hubert; Westlake, Benjamin; Dutton, Richard P
BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest is a rare but important event in the operating room and postanesthesia care unit, when surgical patients are most intensively monitored. Several recent publications have reported the rate of cardiac arrest in surgical patients during the subsequent hospital stay but have not uniquely identified the immediate perioperative period. We hypothesized that cardiac arrest during this time (intraprocedure and postanesthesia care) would occur at a lower frequency than that described for inpatient hospital care in the available literature. METHODS: We extracted data from all cardiac arrests and immediate perioperative deaths reported to the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry for the period from 2010 to 2013 and analyzed for anesthesia-related risk factors. We compared these data to published rates of in-hospital cardiac arrest after surgery. RESULTS: Overall, the risk of cardiac arrest was 5.6 per 10,000 cases, which is less than in previous reports of in-hospital arrests in surgical patients overall, with an associated mortality from the arrest of 58.4%. The rate of cardiac arrest increased with age and ASA physical status. The rate of cardiac arrest was significantly higher for males, as was the mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry is an emerging resource for examination of perioperative and anesthesia-related outcomes. Cardiac arrest is less frequent in the periprocedural setting than later in the hospital course, with most arrests predictably occurring in patients with ASA physical status III-V. The finding of increased risk of mortality in male patients cannot be readily explained and should prompt future research attention.
PMID: 25390278
ISSN: 1526-7598
CID: 1875712
Validity and reliability assessment of detailed scoring checklists for use during perioperative emergency simulation training
McEvoy, Matthew D; Hand, William R; Furse, Cory M; Field, Larry C; Clark, Carlee A; Moitra, Vivek K; Nietert, Paul J; O'Connor, Michael F; Nunnally, Mark E
INTRODUCTION: Few valid and reliable grading checklists have been published for the evaluation of performance during simulated high-stakes perioperative event management. As such, the purposes of this study were to construct valid scoring checklists for a variety of perioperative emergencies and to determine the reliability of scores produced by these checklists during continuous video review. METHODS: A group of anesthesiologists, intensivists, and educators created a set of simulation grading checklists for the assessment of the following scenarios: severe anaphylaxis, cerebrovascular accident, hyperkalemic arrest, malignant hyperthermia, and acute coronary syndrome. Checklist items were coded as critical or noncritical. Nonexpert raters evaluated 10 simulation videos in a random order, with each video being graded 4 times. A group of faculty experts also graded the videos to create a reference standard to which nonexpert ratings were compared. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Team leaders in the simulation videos were scored by the expert panel as having performed 56.5% of all items on the checklist (range, 43.8%-84.0%), and 67.2% of the critical items (range, 30.0%-100%). Nonexpert raters agreed with the expert assessment 89.6% of the time (95% confidence interval, 87.2%-91.6%). No learning curve development was found with repetitive video assessment or checklist use. The kappa values comparing nonexpert rater assessments to the reference standard averaged 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the grading checklists described are valid, are reliable, and could be used in perioperative crisis management assessment.
PMCID:4182114
PMID: 25188486
ISSN: 1559-713x
CID: 1875722
Expect the unexpected: clinical trials are key to understanding post-intensive care syndrome [Comment]
O'Connor, Michael F; Nunnally, Mark E
Long-term follow-up of randomized prospective trials of treatments in the intensive care unit may allow us to attain some understanding of the causes of post-intensive care syndrome. This in turn may allow us to produce better long-term outcomes among survivors of critical illness.
PMCID:3706822
PMID: 23759107
ISSN: 1466-609x
CID: 1875732
Value at the tip of the spear-surrogates for volume [Comment]
Nunnally, Mark E
PMID: 23425833
ISSN: 1530-0293
CID: 1875742
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012 [Guideline]
Dellinger, R P; Levy, Mitchell M; Rhodes, Andrew; Annane, Djillali; Gerlach, Herwig; Opal, Steven M; Sevransky, Jonathan E; Sprung, Charles L; Douglas, Ivor S; Jaeschke, Roman; Osborn, Tiffany M; Nunnally, Mark E; Townsend, Sean R; Reinhart, Konrad; Kleinpell, Ruth M; Angus, Derek C; Deutschman, Clifford S; Machado, Flavia R; Rubenfeld, Gordon D; Webb, Steven; Beale, Richard J; Vincent, Jean-Louis; Moreno, Rui
OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure >/=65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of =100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) <150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose =180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe 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 this important group of critically ill patients.
PMID: 23361625
ISSN: 1432-1238
CID: 1875762
Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012 [Guideline]
Dellinger, R Phillip; Levy, Mitchell M; Rhodes, Andrew; Annane, Djillali; Gerlach, Herwig; Opal, Steven M; Sevransky, Jonathan E; Sprung, Charles L; Douglas, Ivor S; Jaeschke, Roman; Osborn, Tiffany M; Nunnally, Mark E; Townsend, Sean R; Reinhart, Konrad; Kleinpell, Ruth M; Angus, Derek C; Deutschman, Clifford S; Machado, Flavia R; Rubenfeld, Gordon D; Webb, Steven A; Beale, Richard J; Vincent, Jean-Louis; Moreno, Rui
OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure >/= 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of = 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose = 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe 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 this important group of critically ill patients.
PMID: 23353941
ISSN: 1530-0293
CID: 1875752
How do clinicians reconcile conditions and medications? The cognitive context of medication reconciliation
Vashitz, Geva; Nunnally, Mark E; Parmet, Yisrael; Bitan, Yuval; O'Connor, Michael F; Cook, Richard I
Medication omissions and dosing failures are frequent during transitions in patient care. Medication reconciliation (MR) requires bridging discrepancies in a patient's medical history as a setting for care changes. MR has been identified as vulnerable to failure, and a clinician's cognition during MR remains poorly described in the literature. We sought to explore cognition in MR tasks. Specifically, we sought to explore how clinicians make sense of conditions and medications. We observed 24 anesthesia providers performing a card-sorting task to sort conditions and medications for a fictional patient. We analyzed the spatial properties of the data using statistical methods. Most of the participants (58%) arranged the medications along a straight line (p < 0.001). They sorted medications by organ systems (Friedman's chi (2)(54) = 325.7, p < 0.001). These arrangements described the clinical correspondence between each two medications (Wilcoxon W = 192.0, p < 0.001). A cluster analysis showed that the subjects matched conditions and medications related to the same organ system together (Wilcoxon W = 1917.0, p < 0.001). We conclude that the clinicians commonly arranged the information into two groups (conditions and medications) and assigned an internal order within these groups, according to organ systems. They also matched between conditions and medications according to similar criteria. These findings were also supported by verbal protocol analysis. The findings strengthen the argument that organ-based information is pivotal to a clinician's cognition during MR. Understanding the strategies and heuristics, clinicians employ through the MR process may help to develop practices to promote patient safety.
ISI:000313737400012
ISSN: 1435-5558
CID: 1876152