Exploring medical device-related pressure injuries in a single intensive care setting: A longitudinal point prevalence study

Author(s):  
Fiona Coyer ◽  
Jane-Louise Cook ◽  
Anna Doubrovsky ◽  
Amanda Vann ◽  
Greg McNamara
2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 926-935 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. M. Hewson-Conroy ◽  
A. R. Burrell ◽  
D. Elliott ◽  
S. A. R. Webb ◽  
I. M. Seppelt ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S403-S404
Author(s):  
Kathleen Chiotos ◽  
Jennifer Blumenthal ◽  
Juri Boguniewicz ◽  
Debra Palazzi ◽  
Emily Berkman ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Antibiotics are prescribed in up to 80% of pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients, but multicenter studies systematically evaluating antibiotic indications and appropriateness in this high-utilizing population are lacking. Methods A multicenter point prevalence study was conducted at 10 geographically diverse tertiary care US children’s hospitals. All PICU patients < 21 years of age who were receiving systemic antibiotics at 8:00 AM on each study day were included. Study days occurred in February and March 2019. Data were abstracted by critical care and/or infectious diseases trained clinicians using standardized data collection forms and definitions of antibiotic appropriateness. Results 408 of 732 PICU patients (56%) received 618 antibiotics on the two study days. Empiric therapy for suspected bacterial infections without sepsis was the most common indication for antibiotics (22%), followed by treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and empiric therapy for septic shock (12% each, Figure 1). Overall, 194 antibiotic orders (32%) were classified as inappropriate and 158 patients (39%) received at least one inappropriate antibiotic. Vancomycin, cefepime, and ceftriaxone were the antibiotics most often inappropriately prescribed (Figure 2). Antibiotics prescribed inappropriately for the top 5 indications shown in Figure 1 accounted for 77% of all inappropriate antibiotic use. Prolonged ( >4 days) empiric therapy and prolonged ( >24 hours) post-operative prophylaxis were the most common reasons antibiotics prescribed for these indications were classified as inappropriate. Pneumonia and ventilator-associated infections were the most common infections for which antibiotics were prescribed inappropriately (46%). Reasons for inappropriate antibiotic use included lack of evidence supporting a bacterial infection (no radiographic infiltrate or significant increase in respiratory support) and use of unnecessarily broad antibiotics (Table 1). Conclusion Inappropriate antibiotic use is common in the PICU, particularly for pneumonia. Studies focused on defining optimal treatment strategies, as well as improved diagnostic approaches to curtail prolonged courses of empiric therapy, should be prioritized. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 235-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selena S. Au ◽  
Amanda L. Roze des Ordons ◽  
Asma Amir Ali ◽  
Andrea Soo ◽  
Henry T. Stelfox

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 202-208
Author(s):  
S. de Bruin ◽  
M.Y. Alders ◽  
R. van Bruggen ◽  
D. de Korte ◽  
T.W.L. Scheeren ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (suppl_2) ◽  
pp. S127-S130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akira Kuriyama ◽  
Tadaaki Takada ◽  
Hiromasa Irie ◽  
Masaaki Sakuraya ◽  
Kohta Katayama ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Azahar A ◽  
Ibrahim NA ◽  
Lim TA

INTRODUCTION: Enteral nutrition (EN) is the first line of nutrition therapy for critically ill patients with an intact gastrointestinal tract. Even though intensive care units (ICUs) generally have established feeding protocols, prescribing practices to achieve nutrition goal is still widely variable among intensive care practitioners. The aim of this study was mainly to investigate commonly prescribed types and energy concentration in EN formulations including protein prescription. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational, point prevalence study, involving six level 3 ICUs in Malaysia. All patients aged type of EN formulation and protein prescription recorded. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients were included in the analysis out of which 78% of them were mechanically ventilated. At the point of the study, more than 16 years of age in the participating ICUs on the 11th of October 2016 were enrolled in this study and 71.5% (78/109) received EN. Among the EN group, 68% (53/78) received standard formulation feeds (1kcal/ml) while the rest received energy dense formulation (>1kcal/ml). Fluid restriction was the main indication for energy dense formulation prescription, occurring in almost all (24/25) of the patients. There was no report of feeding intolerance. Only 2/109 received parenteral nutrition (PN) giving the EN to PN ratio of 30:1. The mean protein prescription was 0.9g/kg (SD± 0.4). CONCLUSION: Prescription of EN was 30 times more frequent than PN in these ICUs. In those receiving EN, standard formulation feed was 3 times more commonly prescribed than energy dense feeds with fluid restriction being the main indication of the latter. Protein prescription was less than the guideline recommendation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document