Publications

OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence of and evaluate factors associated with down-titration of sedation in patients receiving neuromuscular blockade.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: Tertiary care teaching hospital in Boston, MA.

PATIENTS: All patients over 18 years old admitted to the medical, surgical, or cardiac ICUs from 2013 to 2016, and who received cisatracurium for at least 24 hours.

INTERVENTIONS: We examined patients for whom sedation was decreased despite accompanying ongoing neuromuscular blockade administration.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 300 patients who met inclusion criteria (39% female, mean age of 57 yr old), 168 (56%) had sedation down-titrated while receiving neuromuscular blockade with a mean decrease in sedation dose of 18.7%. Factors associated with down-titration of sedation were bispectral index usage (90/168 [53.6%] vs 50/168 [29.8%] patients; p < 0.01; odds ratio, 1.82; 1.12-2.94), and bolus dose of neuromuscular blockade prior to continuous infusion (138/168 [82.1%] vs 79/168 [47.0%] patients; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS: Down-titration of sedation among mechanically ventilated patients receiving neuromuscular blockade was common and was correlated with bispectral index monitor usage. Clinicians should be aware of the limitations of quantitative electroencephalography monitoring devices and recognize their potential to cause inappropriate down-titration of sedation. Substantial opportunity exists to improve the quality of care of patients receiving neuromuscular blockade through development of guidelines and standardized care pathways.

PURPOSE: High acuity units (HAU) are hospital units that provide patients with more acute care and closer monitoring than a general hospital ward but are not as resource intensive as an intensive care unit (ICU). Nevertheless, the impact of opening a HAU on ICU patient outcomes remains poorly defined. We investigated how the creation of a HAU impacted patient outcomes in the ICU.

METHODS: This historical cohort study compared ICU patient in-hospital mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS before and after the creation of a HAU in a tertiary-care hospital with a medical/surgical ICU between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2017.

RESULTS: Data from 4,380 patients (984 in the pre-HAU group and 3,396 in the post-HAU group) were analyzed. In this cohort of ICU patients, 360 (37%) died in the pre-HAU group before the creation of a HAU, and 1,074 (32%) died in the post-HAU group after the creation of a HAU. The creation of a HAU was associated with lower relative risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted risk ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.89; P < 0.001). The creation of a HAU was also associated with reduced ICU and hospital LOS with a 12% increase in the rate of ICU discharge (adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.23; P = 0.02) and a 26% increase in the rate of hospital discharge (adjusted SHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.39; P < 0.001), when accounting for the competing risk of death.

CONCLUSIONS: These data support the hypothesis that the creation of a HAU may be associated with reduced in-hospital mortality, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS for ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Widespread attention to structural racism has heightened interest in disparities in the quality of care delivered to racial/ethnic minorities and other vulnerable populations. These groups may also be at increased risk of patient safety events.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in inpatient patient safety events for vulnerable populations defined by race/ethnicity, insurance status and limited English proficiency (LEP).

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: Single tertiary care academic medical centre.

PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient admissions of those aged ≥18 years from 1 October 2014 to 31 December 2018.

MEASUREMENTS: Primary exposures of interest were self-identified race/ethnicity, Medicaid insurance/uninsured and LEP. The primary outcome of interest was the total number of patient safety events, defined as any event identified by a modified version of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement global trigger tool that automatically identifies patient safety events ('automated') from the electronic record or by the hospital-wide voluntary provider reporting system ('voluntary'). Negative binomial models were used to adjust for demographic and clinical factors. We also stratified results by automated and voluntary.

RESULTS: We studied 141 877 hospitalisations, of which 13.6% had any patient safety event. In adjusted analyses, Asian race/ethnicity was associated with a lower event rate (incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); LEP patients had a lower risk of any patient safety event and voluntary events (IRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96; IRR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94). Asian and Latino race/ethnicity were also associated with a lower rate of voluntary events but no difference in risk of automated events. Black race was associated with an increased risk of automated events (IRR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20).

LIMITATIONS: This is a single centre study.

CONCLUSIONS: A commonly used method for monitoring patient safety problems, namely voluntary incident reporting, may underdetect safety events in vulnerable populations.

BACKGROUND: The emotional toll of critical illness on patients and their families can be profound and is emerging as an important target for value improvement. One source of emotional harm to patients and families may be care perceived as inadequately respectful. The prevalence and risk factors for types of emotional harms is under-studied.

METHODS: This prospective cohort study was conducted in nine ICUs at a tertiary care academic medical center in the United States. Prevalence of inadequate respect for (a) the patient and (b) the family, as well as prevalence of perceived lack of control over the care of their loved ones, was assessed by the Family Satisfaction with Care in the Intensive Care Unit instrument. The relationship between these outcomes with demographic and clinical covariates was assessed. Stratification by patient survivorship was performed in sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS: Of more than 1,500 respondents, 16.9% and 21.8% reported that the patient or the family member, respectively, received inadequate respect. No clinical characteristics of the patients were associated with inadequate respect for either the patient or the family member. By comparison, more than half of respondents reported a lack of control over their loved one's care; this finding was associated with multiple clinical factors. Prevalence and associated factors differed by patient survivorship status.

CONCLUSION: Care that is inadequately respectful to patients and families in the setting of critical illness is prevalent but does not appear to be associated with clinical characteristics. The incidence of such emotional harms is nuanced, difficult to predict, and deserves further investigation.

Rationale: Although gastrostomy tubes have shown to be of limited benefit in patients with advanced dementia, they continue to be used to deliver nutritional support in critically ill patients. The epidemiology and short-term outcomes are unclear. Objectives: To quantify national practice patterns and short-term outcomes of gastrostomy tube placement among the critically ill over the last two decades in the United States. Methods: Using the U.S. Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample, we evaluated trends in annual population-standardized rates of gastrostomy tube placement among critically ill adults from 1994 to 2014; we also quantified trends in length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and discharge location. We conducted sensitivity analyses among mechanically ventilated patients, survivors, and decedents of critical illness, and in a critically ill population excluding patients with dementia. Results: From 1994 to 2014, population-based rates of gastrostomy tube use in critically ill patients increased from 11.9 to 28.8 gastrostomies per 100,000 U.S. adults (peak in incidence in 2010), an increase of 142% (31,392-91,990 gastrostomy tubes in critically ill patients; P < 0.001). Patients receiving gastrostomy tubes during critical illness occupied a growing proportion of all gastrostomy tube placements, accounting for 19.6% of all gastrostomy tubes placed in 1994 and 50.8% in 2014. The rate of gastrostomies in critically ill patients remained roughly stable, from 2.5% of critically ill patients in 1994 to a peak of 3.7% in 2002 before declining again to 2.4% in 2014. Hospital length of stay and in-hospital mortality decreased among gastrostomy tube recipients (28.7 d to 20.5 d, P < 0.001; 25.9-11.3%, P < 0.001; respectively), whereas discharges to long-term facilities increased significantly (49.6-70.6%; P < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses among mechanically ventilated patients revealed similar increases in population-based estimates of gastrostomy tube placement. Conclusions: The incidence of gastrostomy tube placement among critically ill patients more than doubled between 1994 and 2014, with most patients being discharged to long-term care facilities. Critically ill patients are now the primary utilizer of gastrostomy tubes placed in the United States. Additional research is needed to better characterize the long-term risk and benefits of gastrostomy tube use in critically ill patients.

RATIONALE: Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) often require the care of specialist physicians for clinical or procedural expertise. The current state of communication between specialist physicians and families and nurses has not been explored.

OBJECTIVES: To document the receipt of communication by nurses and family members regarding consultations performed on their patient or loved one, and to quantify how this impacts their overall perceptions of the quality of specialty care.

METHODS: Prospective survey of 60 adult family members and 90 nurses of 189 ICU patients who received a specialist consultation between March and October of 2015 in a single academic medical center in the United States. Surveys measured the prevalence of direct communication-defined as communication conducted in person, via telephone, or via text-page in which the specialist team gathered information about the patient from the nurse/family member and/or shared recommendations for care-and perceived quality of care.

RESULTS: In about two-thirds of family surveys (40/60) and one-half of nurse surveys (75/160), respondents had no direct communication with the specialist team that performed the consultation. Compared to nurses who had no direct communication with the specialists, those who did were 1.5 times more likely to rate the consultation as "excellent" (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.2-1.8, p<0.001). Nearly 40% (22/60) of families knew so little about the consultation that they felt incapable of evaluating it.

CONCLUSIONS: Most ICU families and nurses have no interaction with specialist providers. Nurses' frequent exclusion from conversations about specialty care may pose safety risks and increase the likelihood of mixed messages for patients and families, most of whom desire some interaction with specialists. Future research is needed to identify effective mechanisms for information sharing that keep nurses and families aware of consultation requests, delivery, and outcomes without increasing the risk of mixed messages.