Current Issue : January-March Volume : 2022 Issue Number : 1 Articles : 5 Articles
Objective: Critical care nurses work in a challenging intensive care (ICU) environment that results in work-related psychological distress. Our objective was to pilot an in-person or virtual mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) program enhanced resilience and a similarly designed attention control group. Methods: We randomized ICU nurses with symptoms of burnout syndrome and decreased resilience to an MBCT program or a similarly formatted book club control. Our primary outcome was change in resilience as measured by the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Results: Onehundred one nurses completed study-related procedures. Overall, 70% had baseline symptoms of anxiety and 26% had symptoms of depression. For the in-person cohorts, there was no statistical difference between intervention and control groups regarding the total number of sessions attended (3.85 days ± 1.4 versus 3.75 days ± 0.15; p = 0.64). Using the Client/Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 (CSQ-8), satisfaction scores were higher in the intervention group for weeks two through four of the program: p = 0.03, 0.0003, 0.007 respectively. There was no difference in the change in CD-RISC scores between the two groups (mean difference: treatment = 5.0, control = 7.0; p = 0.30). The online intervention cohort had greater improvements in the change of their median emotional exhaustion burnout scores when compared to the inperson intervention cohorts (−5 [−8 to −1.5] vs. 2 [−5 to 8], p = 0.049). Conclusions: We developed a feasible and acceptable in-person and online MBCT-ICU intervention that did not increase resilience scores in ICU nurses when compared to an attention control group. These results could help guide the proper design of larger trials to determine the efficacy of other resilience interventions....
Background: Excess morbidity and mortality following critical illness is increasingly attributed to potentially avoidable complications occurring as a result of complex ICU management (Berenholtz et al., J Crit Care 17:1-2, 2002; De Vos et al., J Crit Care 22:267-74, 2007; Zimmerman J Crit Care 1:12-5, 2002). Routine measurement of quality indicators (QIs) through an Electronic Health Record (EHR) or registries are increasingly used to benchmark care and evaluate improvement interventions. However, existing indicators of quality for intensive care are derived almost exclusively from relatively narrow subsets of ICU patients from high-income healthcare systems. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically review the literature on QIs for evaluating critical care, identify QIs, map their definitions, evidence base, and describe the variances in measurement, and both the reported advantages and challenges of implementation. Method: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane libraries from the earliest available date through to January 2019. To increase the sensitivity of the search, grey literature and reference lists were reviewed. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of one or more QIs designed to evaluate care for patients in ICU captured through a registry platform or EHR adapted for quality of care surveillance. Results: The search identified 4780 citations. Review of abstracts led to retrieval of 276 full-text articles, of which 123 articles were accepted. Fifty-one unique QIs in ICU were classified using the three components of health care quality proposed by the High Quality Health Systems (HQSS) framework. Adverse events including hospital acquired infections (13.7%), hospital processes (54.9%), and outcomes (31.4%) were the most common QIs identified. Patient reported outcome QIs accounted for less than 6%. Barriers to the implementation of QIs were described in 35.7% of articles and divided into operational barriers (51%) and acceptability barriers (49%). Conclusions: Despite the complexity and risk associated with ICU care, there are only a small number of operational indicators used. Future selection of QIs would benefit from a stakeholder-driven approach, whereby the values of patients and communities and the priorities for actionable improvement as perceived by healthcare providers are prioritized and include greater focus on measuring discriminable processes of care....
The prevalence of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were prescribed antibiotics is undetermined and might contribute to the increased global antibiotic resistance. This systematic review evaluates the prevalence of antibiotic prescribing in patients admitted to ICUs with SARS-CoV-2 infection using PRISMA guidelines. We searched and scrutinized results from PubMed and ScienceDirect databases for published literature restricted to the English language up to 11 May 2021. In addition, we included observational studies of humans with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, clinical characteristics, and antibiotics prescribed for ICU patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections. A total of 361 studies were identified, but only 38 were included in the final analysis. Antibiotic prescribing data were available from 2715 patients, of which prevalence of 71% was reported in old age patients with a mean age of 62.7 years. From the reported studies, third generation cephalosporin had the highest frequency amongst reviewed studies (36.8%) followed by azithromycin (34.2%). The estimated bacterial infection in 12 reported studies was 30.8% produced by 15 different bacterial species, and S. aureus recorded the highest bacterial infection (75%). The fundamental outcomes were the prevalence of ICU COVID-19 patients prescribed antibiotics stratified by age, type of antibiotics prescribed, and the presence of co-infections and comorbidities. In conclusion, more than half of ICU patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection received antibiotics, and prescribing is significantly higher than the estimated frequency of identified bacterial co-infection....
Background: To test the hypothesis that Intensive Care Unit (ICU) doctors and nurses differ in their personal preferences for treatment from the general population, and whether doctors and nurses make different choices when thinking about themselves, as compared to when they are treating a patient. Methods: Cross sectional, observational study conducted in 13 ICUs in Australia in 2017 using a discrete choice experiment survey. Respondents completed a series of choice sets, based on hypothetical situations which varied in the severity or likelihood of: death, cognitive impairment, need for prolonged treatment, need for assistance with care or requiring residential care. Results: A total of 980 ICU staff (233 doctors and 747 nurses) participated in the study. ICU staff place the highest value on avoiding ending up in a dependent state. The ICU staff were more likely to choose to discontinue therapy when the prognosis was worse, compared with the general population. There was consensus between ICU staff personal views and the treatment pathway likely to be followed in 69% of the choices considered by nurses and 70% of those faced by doctors. In 27% (1614/5945 responses) of the nurses and 23% of the doctors (435/1870 responses), they felt that aggressive treatment would be continued for the hypothetical patient but they would not want that for themselves. Conclusion: The likelihood of returning to independence (or not requiring care assistance) was reported as the most important factor for ICU staff (and the general population) in deciding whether to receive ongoing treatments. Goals of care discussions should focus on this, over likelihood of survival....
The primary aim was to evaluate the burnout prevalence among healthcare workers (HCWs) in intensive care units (ICUs) and emergency departments (EDs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary aim was to identify factors associated with burnout in this population. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines by searching PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, and Scopus from 1 January to 24 November 2020. Studies with information about burnout prevalence/level during the pandemic regarding ICU/ED HCWs were eligible. A total of 927 records were identified. The selection resulted in 11 studies. Most studies were conducted in April/May 2020. Samples ranged from 15 to 12,596 participants. The prevalence of overall burnout ranged from 49.3% to 58%. Nurses seemed to be at higher risk. Both socio-demographic and work-related features were associated with burnout. Many pandemic-related variables were associated with burnout, e.g., shortage in resources, worry regarding COVID-19, and stigma. This review highlighted a substantial burnout prevalence among ICU/ED HCWs. However, this population has presented a high burnout prevalence for a long time, and there is not sufficient evidence to understand if such prevalence is currently increased. It also outlined modifiable factors and the need to improve emergency preparedness both from an individual and structural level....
Loading....