Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinicians with evidence-based strategies to optimize the support of the family of critically ill patients in the ICU. METHODS: We used the Council of Medical Specialty Societies principles for the development of clinical guidelines as the framework for guideline development. We assembled an international multidisciplinary team of 29 members with expertise in guideline development, evidence analysis, and family-centered care to revise the 2007 Clinical Practice Guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered ICU. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative research that explored family-centered care in the ICU. Thematic analyses were conducted to support Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. Patients and families validated the importance of interventions and outcomes. We then conducted a systematic review using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology to make recommendations for practice. Recommendations were subjected to electronic voting with pre-established voting thresholds. No industry funding was associated with the guideline development. RESULTS: The scoping review yielded 683 qualitative studies; 228 were used for thematic analysis and Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. The systematic review search yielded 4,158 reports after deduplication and 76 additional studies were added from alerts and hand searches; 238 studies met inclusion criteria. We made 23 recommendations from moderate, low, and very low level of evidence on the topics of: communication with family members, family presence, family support, consultations and ICU team members, and operational and environmental issues. We provide recommendations for future research and work-tools to support translation of the recommendations into practice. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines identify the evidence base for best practices for family-centered care in the ICU. All recommendations were weak, highlighting the relative nascency of this field of research and the importance of future research to identify the most effective interventions to improve this important aspect of ICU care.

Sepsis is as a dysregulated systemic response to infection. Morbidity and mortality of the syndrome are very high worldwide. Recent definitions have redefined criteria for sepsis. The new definition (Sepsis-3) classifies sepsis as infection with organ dysfunction (the old 'severe sepsis'). Septic patients are at risk for secondary injuries, thus aggressive source control, resuscitation, and antibiotic therapy are the mainstays of management. Central to sepsis physiology is vasodilated shock. Many patients respond to i.v. fluid therapy. Pathophysiology also includes energy failure, or a cellular inability to oxidize fuel, and immune incompetence, often manifest by susceptibility to superinfections. Sepsis treatment is optimized by timely resuscitation and control of infection. Early recognition and resuscitation are associated with improved outcomes, although no single resuscitation end point is as good as overall patient assessment. Dynamic resuscitation metrics might be useful to avoid overinfusion of fluid therapies. Antibiotics should treat likely pathogens, with broader coverage for sicker patients (e.g. those with septic shock). Avoidance of iatrogenic injury, such as ventilator-induced lung injury from large tidal volumes, helps to prevent subsequent tissue damage and worsened systemic response. Single-agent therapies to block the systemic response have not fulfilled promise in sepsis, probably because part of the complex syndrome is adaptive. However, early aggressive care based on bundles is associated with improved outcomes. Research opportunities include understanding the role of neurological, endocrine, immune, and metabolic pathophysiology in the syndrome.

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.

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.

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.

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.