Evaluation of the safety of inter-hospital transfers of critically ill patients led by advanced critical care practitioners

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 470-476
Author(s):  
Gavin Denton ◽  
Lindsay Green ◽  
Marion Palmer ◽  
Anita Jones ◽  
Sarah Quinton ◽  
...  

Introduction: Ten thousand inter-hospital transfers of critically ill adults take place annually in the UK. Studies highlight deficiencies in experience and training of staff, equipment, stabilisation before departure, and logistical difficulties. This article is a quality improvement review of an advanced critical care practitioner (ACCP)-led inter-hospital transfer service. Methods: The tool Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence was used as the format for the review, combined with clinical audit of advanced critical care practitioner-led transfers over a period of more than 3 years. Results: The transfer service has operated for 8 years; ACCPs conducted 934 critical care transfers of mechanically ventilated patients, including 286 inter-hospital transfers, between January 2017 and September 2020. The acuity of transfer patients was high, 82.2% required support of more than one organ, 49% required more than 50% oxygen. Uneventful transfer occurred in 81.4% of cases; the most common patient-related complication being hypotension, logistical issues were responsible for half of the complications. Conclusion: This quality improvement project provides an example of safe and effective advanced practice in an area that is traditionally a medically led domain. ACCPs can provide an alternative process of care for critically ill adults who require external transfer, and a benchmark for audit and quality improvement.

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e052214
Author(s):  
Bronwen Connolly ◽  
Rhian Milton-Cole ◽  
Claire Adams ◽  
Ceri Battle ◽  
Joanne McPeake ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo comprehensively update and survey the current provision of recovery, rehabilitation and follow-up services for adult critical care patients across the UK.DesignCross-sectional, self-administered, predominantly closed-question, electronic, online survey.SettingInstitutions providing adult critical care services identified from national databases.ParticipantsMultiprofessional critical care clinicians delivering services at each site.ResultsResponses from 176 UK hospital sites were included (176/242, 72.7%). Inpatient recovery and follow-up services were present at 127/176 (72.2%) sites, adopting multiple formats of delivery and primarily delivered by nurses (n=115/127, 90.6%). Outpatient services ran at 130 sites (73.9%), predominantly as outpatient clinics. Most services (n=108/130, 83.1%) were co-delivered by two or more healthcare professionals, typically nurse/intensive care unit (ICU) physician (n=29/130, 22.3%) or nurse/ICU physician/physiotherapist (n=19/130, 14.6%) teams. Clinical psychology was most frequently lacking from inpatient or outpatient services. Lack of funding was consistently the primary barrier to service provision, with other barriers including logistical and service prioritisation factors indicating that infrastructure and profile for services remain inadequate. Posthospital discharge physical rehabilitation programmes were relatively few (n=31/176, 17.6%), but peer support services were available in nearly half of responding institutions (n=85/176, 48.3%). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in either increasing, decreasing or reformatting service provision. Future plans for long-term service transformation focus on expansion of current, and establishment of new, outpatient services.ConclusionOverall, these data demonstrate a proliferation of recovery, follow-up and rehabilitation services for critically ill adults in the past decade across the UK, although service gaps remain suggesting further work is required for guideline implementation. Findings can be used to enhance survivorship for critically ill adults, inform policymakers and commissioners, and provide comparative data and experiential insights for clinicians designing models of care in international healthcare jurisdictions.


2016 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 76-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron M. Joffe ◽  
Bridgett McNulty ◽  
Madalina Boitor ◽  
Rebekah Marsh ◽  
Céline Gélinas

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (05) ◽  
pp. 604-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret A. Pisani ◽  
John W. Devlin ◽  
Yoanna Skrobik

AbstractManaging pain and delirium are crucial to patients, families, and caregivers in intensive care units. The Society of Critical Care Medicine 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep disruption (PADIS) guidelines reviewed literature until October 2015 and made its recommendations for critically-ill adults. This chapter addresses evidence gaps, identified during the guideline process, most relevant to clinicians, adds newer evidence published after the PADIS 2018 guidelines were produced, describes hindsight-driven PADIS process or content-related gaps, and reflects on how these considerations may help inform future research investigations and new guideline efforts.


2018 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 334-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig M. Dale ◽  
Virginia Prendergast ◽  
Céline Gélinas ◽  
Louise Rose

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S111-S112
Author(s):  
Justin Dang ◽  
Matthew E Lin ◽  
Samantha Huang ◽  
Ian F Hulsebos ◽  
Haig A Yenikomshian ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a simple, noninvasive method of assessing body composition. BIA operates by sending a low-voltage electric current through the body and measuring the impedance to that current. Parameters obtained from BIA have been used to investigate a range of variables such as nutrition and hydration status in a variety of patient populations. Phase angle is also a unique parameter that is thought to reflect cellular health. BIA parameters can undergo further analysis by bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) which can provide information about hydration status. Burn and critical care patients pose a unique challenge because they are particularly sensitive to fluid shifts and metabolic derangements which are associated with poorer outcomes. The utility of BIA and BIVA in this patient population has not been well studied. Thus, we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the ability of BIVA and BIA parameters to assess cellular health and hydration status in critically ill adults and whether they can be correlated with outcomes. Methods A search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar in accordance with PRISMA guidelines between June 2020-August 2020 utilizing the keywords: bioelectrical impedance analysis, critical care, critical, body composition, phase angle, water, fluid. Inclusion criteria were articles investigating the relationship between BIA, BIVA and outcomes with regards to phase angle, hydration, and fluid status in critically ill adults. Reviews, non-English articles, and studies involving pediatric patients were excluded. A meta-analysis was conducted on the correlation between mean phase angle and mortality. Results The final analysis included 21 articles; 4 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Statistically significant correlations were found between phase angle and mortality in 9/13 articles, hospital length of stay in 4/7 articles, ICU length of stay in 5/7 articles, and mechanical ventilation duration in 1/4 articles. For meta-analysis, mean phase angle in survivors and non-survivors was 4.5 and 3.9 respectively, and this difference was statistically significant (Figure 1, p< 0.01). Significant correlations were found between ECW/TBW and mortality in 4/7 articles, and BIVA derived hydration status and mortality in 6/7 articles. Conclusions BIA and BIVA may be used as a prognostic indicator for outcomes in critical care patients. Further investigations are needed to explore this relationship in the burn patient population.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document