Instruments Assessing Cognitive Impairment in Survivors of Critical Illness and Reporting of Race Norms: A Systematic Review.

To conduct a systematic review to summarize cognitive instruments being used in long-term outcome studies of survivors of adult critical illness, as well as evaluate whether these measures are reported as using patient demographic norms, specifically race norms. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Ovid), Psychological Information Database (ProQuest), and Web of Science (Clarivate) for English language studies published since 2002. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible if the population included adult ICU survivors assessed for postdischarge cognitive outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, examined full text, and extracted data from all eligible articles. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 98 articles (55 unique cohorts: 22 general ICU, 14 Acute respiratory distress syndrome/Acute respiratory failure/Sepsis, 19 COVID-19 and other subpopulations) were eligible for data extraction and synthesis. Among general ICU survivors, the majority of studies (n = 15, 68%) assessed cognition using multiple instruments, of which the most common was the Mini-Mental State Examination. Only nine of the 22 studies (41%) explicitly reported using patient demographic norms for scoring neuropsychological cognitive tests. Of the nine, all reported using age as a norming characteristic, education was reported in eight (89%), sex/gender was reported in five (55%), and race/ethnicity was reported in three (33%). Among Acute respiratory distress syndrome/Acute respiratory failure/Sepsis survivors, norming characteristics were reported in only four (28%) of the 14 studies, of which all reported using age and none reported using race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of the studies measuring cognitive outcomes in ICU survivors reported the use of norming characteristics. There is substantial heterogeneity in how studies reported the use of cognitive instruments, and hence, the prevalence of the use of patient norms may be underestimated. These findings are important in the development of appropriate standards for use and reporting of neuropsychological tests among ICU survivors.

Disparities in COVID-19 Mortality Rates: Implications for Rural Health Policy and Preparedness.

CONTEXT: It is well established that rural communities face geographic and socioeconomic challenges linked to higher rates of health disparities across the United States, though the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impact on rural communities is less certain. OBJECTIVE: To understand the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on rural communities in Tennessee, investigate differences in rural-urban mortality rates after controlling for confounding variables, and inform state pandemic response policy. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis of cumulative COVID-19 morality rates. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Tennessee county-level COVID-19 mortality data from March 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, were matched with county-level sociodemographic and health data from public datasets: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Social Determinants of Health, PLACES: Local Data for Better Health County Data, and the US Census Bureau. County status was defined using the 2013 National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A negative binomial regression model estimated adjusted incidence rate ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for rural compared with urban mortality. Unadjusted rate ratios and rate differences for COVID-19 mortality in rural versus urban counties were compared with those for influenza and pneumonia and all-cause mortality over the past 5 years. RESULTS: During the study period, 9650 COVID-19 deaths occurred across 42 urban and 53 rural counties. Controlling for county-level sociodemographic characteristics, health care access, and comorbidities, incidence rate ratio was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.00-1.28, P < .05) for rural as compared with urban deaths. Unadjusted COVID-19 mortality risk difference between rural and urban counties was greater (61.85, 95% CI, 54.31-69.31) than 5-year influenza and pneumonia rural-urban risk difference (12.57, 95% CI, 11.16-13.00) during 2015-2019. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 mortality rates were greater for populations living in Tennessee's rural as compared with urban counties during the study period. This differential impact must be considered in public health decision making to mitigate COVID-19.

Bridging Didactic Learning and the Complexity of Practice Through Clinical Immersion: Evaluating the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Trainee Experience.

ABSTRACT: In this article, we discuss the development and evaluation of the Vanderbilt Nursing Education Program for Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (VEP-SANE), a 3-day clinical immersion (CI) program, including the lessons learned and the challenges experienced with the completion of two trainee cohorts. To bridge didactic learning and the complexity of practice, the VEP-SANE team designed an innovative, competency-based CI. Fifteen trainees from Cohort 1 and 19 trainees from Cohort 2 met requirements for CI participation. Trainees in Cohort 1 represented the advanced practice registered nurse specialties of emergency, women's health, and pediatrics. For Cohort 2 recruitment, enrollment was expanded to include family and midwifery advanced practice registered nurse specialties. Trainees were required to complete online training modules before CI participation. Online surveys assessed trainee perceptions about levels of knowledge and confidence related to sexual assault nurse examiner competencies (pre/post CI), each CI session, and the overall CI experience. Separate focused discussions were conducted with trainees and faculty after each CI. Both cohorts rated CI sessions as "excellent" or "very good" over 93% of the time. Perceived levels of knowledge and confidence increased from pre-CI to post-CI for both cohorts. Similar CI strengths were identified across trainees and faculty including speakers, high interactivity, safe environment, reality of cases, and surrogate practice. All trainees indicated readiness for preceptorships and interest in a virtual community of practice. Suggestions included more time for laboratory sessions, documenting photos, and interaction with individuals from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community and presenters. Future efforts focus on CI conversion to a virtual format because of the impact of COVID-19, increased VEP-SANE community of practice interaction, and expanded engagement with practicing sexual assault nurse examiners.

Statistical analysis plan for the Surgery for Cancer with Option of Palliative Care Expert (SCOPE) trial: a randomized controlled trial of a specialist palliative care intervention for patients undergoing surgery for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The impact of specialist palliative care intervention in patients undergoing surgery for cancer has not been studied extensively. The SCOPE randomized controlled trial will investigate the effect of specialist palliative care intervention in cancer patients undergoing surgery for selected abdominal malignancies. The study protocol of the SCOPE Trial was published in December 2019. METHODS AND DESIGN: The SCOPE Trial is a single-center, single-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial that will investigate specialist palliative care intervention for cancer patients undergoing surgery for selected abdominal malignancies. The study plans to enroll 236 patients that will be randomized to specialist palliative care (intervention arm) and usual care (control arm) in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS: The primary outcome of the study is the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Trial Outcome Index (TOI) at 90 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes of the study include the total FACT-G score at 90 days postoperatively, days alive at home without an emergency room visit within 90 days of operation, and all-cause mortality at 1 year after operation. Time frames for all outcomes will start on the day of surgery. CONCLUSION: This manuscript serves as the formal statistical analysis plan (version 1.0) for the SCOPE randomized controlled trial. The statistical analysis plan was completed on 6 April 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03436290 . Registered on 16 February 2018.

Prevalence and risk factors for delirium in critically ill patients with COVID-19 (COVID-D): a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To date, 750 000 patients with COVID-19 worldwide have required mechanical ventilation and thus are at high risk of acute brain dysfunction (coma and delirium). We aimed to investigate the prevalence of delirium and coma, and risk factors for delirium in critically ill patients with COVID-19, to aid the development of strategies to mitigate delirium and associated sequelae. METHODS: This multicentre cohort study included 69 adult intensive care units (ICUs), across 14 countries. We included all patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to participating ICUs with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection before April 28, 2020. Patients who were moribund or had life-support measures withdrawn within 24 h of ICU admission, prisoners, patients with pre-existing mental illness, neurodegenerative disorders, congenital or acquired brain damage, hepatic coma, drug overdose, suicide attempt, or those who were blind or deaf were excluded. We collected de-identified data from electronic health records on patient demographics, delirium and coma assessments, and management strategies for a 21-day period. Additional data on ventilator support, ICU length of stay, and vital status was collected for a 28-day period. The primary outcome was to determine the prevalence of delirium and coma and to investigate any associated risk factors associated with development of delirium the next day. We also investigated predictors of number of days alive without delirium or coma. These outcomes were investigated using multivariable regression. FINDINGS: Between Jan 20 and April 28, 2020, 4530 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to 69 ICUs, of whom 2088 patients were included in the study cohort. The median age of patients was 64 years (IQR 54 to 71) with a median Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II of 40·0 (30·0 to 53·0). 1397 (66·9%) of 2088 patients were invasively mechanically ventilated on the day of ICU admission and 1827 (87·5%) were invasively mechanical ventilated at some point during hospitalisation. Infusion with sedatives while on mechanical ventilation was common: 1337 (64·0%) of 2088 patients were given benzodiazepines for a median of 7·0 days (4·0 to 12·0) and 1481 (70·9%) were given propofol for a median of 7·0 days (4·0 to 11·0). Median Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score while on invasive mechanical ventilation was -4 (-5 to -3). 1704 (81·6%) of 2088 patients were comatose for a median of 10·0 days (6·0 to 15·0) and 1147 (54·9%) were delirious for a median of 3·0 days (2·0 to 6·0). Mechanical ventilation, use of restraints, and benzodiazepine, opioid, and vasopressor infusions, and antipsychotics were each associated with a higher risk of delirium the next day (all p≤0·04), whereas family visitation (in person or virtual) was associated with a lower risk of delirium (p<0·0001). During the 21-day study period, patients were alive without delirium or coma for a median of 5·0 days (0·0 to 14·0). At baseline, older age, higher SAPS II scores, male sex, smoking or alcohol abuse, use of vasopressors on day 1, and invasive mechanical ventilation on day 1 were independently associated with fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma (all p<0·01). 601 (28·8%) of 2088 patients died within 28 days of admission, with most of those deaths occurring in the ICU. INTERPRETATION: Acute brain dysfunction was highly prevalent and prolonged in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Benzodiazepine use and lack of family visitation were identified as modifiable risk factors for delirium, and thus these data present an opportunity to reduce acute brain dysfunction in patients with COVID-19. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Critical Care Clinician Reports on Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results From a National Survey of 4,875 ICU Providers.

IMPORTANCE: Global cases of coronavirus disease 2019 infection continue to increase, and significant numbers of patients are critically ill, placing an immense burden on ICU resources. Understanding baseline resource needs and surge capacity in the ICU will be essential to meet current and projected healthcare needs. Continued appraisal of the state of readiness for healthcare systems at individual, regional and national levels will be paramount to ensure we are poised to continue the fight against coronavirus disease 2019. OBJECTIVES: This study queried U.S. ICU clinician perspectives on ICU preparedness and concerns regarding delivering coronavirus disease 2019 patient care. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: An anonymous web-based survey administered from March 18, 2020, to March 25, 2020 (email and newsletter) used survey methodology to query members of U.S. national critical care organizations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Through a 12-item descriptive questionnaire, ICU clinicians were assessed regarding preparedness, techniques employed to augment critical care capacity, and concerns related to caring for coronavirus disease 2019 patients. RESULTS: A total of 4,875 ICU clinicians responded to the survey. Respondents included ICU nurses (n = 3,470, 71.3%), physicians (n = 664, 13.6%), advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants; n = 334, 6.9%), respiratory therapists (n = 236, 4.9%), and pharmacists (n = 79, 1.6%). Over half (n = 2,552, 52.5%) reported having cared for a presumed or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 patient. The majority (n = 4,010, 82.9%) identified that their hospital was employing techniques to augment critical care capacity. However, 64.5% (n = 3,125) believed that their ICU facility and team were inadequately prepared to treat coronavirus disease 2019 patients. The majority (n = 4,547, 93.9%) anticipated ICU personal protective equipment shortages based upon their current use profile. The chief reported concerns include ICU resource shortages such as supplies, medications, beds, ICU staffing shortages, and patient surge leading to overcrowding. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This national ICU clinician survey indicates that hospitals are expanding ICU bed capacity to prepare for coronavirus disease 2019 patient surge. Importantly, amid this preparation, ICU clinicians harbor concerns regarding preparedness, staffing, and common use resources that merit specific education as well as resource allocation and utilization planning.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Measures: Reports From a National Survey of 9,120 ICU Clinicians.

IMPORTANCE: Recent reports identify that among hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients, 30% require ICU care. Understanding ICU resource needs remains an essential component of meeting current and projected needs of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients. OBJECTIVES: This study queried U.S. ICU clinician perspectives on challenging aspects of care in managing coronavirus disease 2019 patients, current and anticipated resource demands, and personal stress. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using a descriptive survey methodology, an anonymous web-based survey was administered from April 7, 2020, to April 22, 2020 (email and newsletter) to query members of U.S. national critical care organizations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Through a 16-item descriptive questionnaire, ICU clinician perceptions were assessed regarding current and emerging critical ICU needs in managing the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infected patients, resource levels, concerns about being exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and perceived level of personal stress. A total of 9,120 ICU clinicians responded to the survey, representing all 50 U.S. states, with 4,106 (56.9%) working in states with 20,000 or more coronavirus disease 2019 cases. The 7,317 respondents who indicated their profession included ICU nurses (n = 6,731, 91.3%), advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants; n = 334, 4.5%), physicians (n = 212, 2.9%), respiratory therapists (n = 31, 0.4%), and pharmacists (n = 30, 0.4%). A majority (n = 6,510, 88%) reported having cared for a patient with presumed or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. The most critical ICU needs identified were personal protective equipment, specifically N95 respirator availability, and ICU staffing. Minimizing healthcare worker virus exposure during care was believed to be the most challenging aspect of coronavirus disease 2019 patient care (n = 2,323, 30.9%). Nurses report a high level of concern about exposing family members to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (median score of 10 on 0-10 scale). Similarly, the level of concern reached the maximum score of 10 in ICU clinicians who had provided care to coronavirus disease 2019 patients. CONCLUSIONS: This national ICU clinician survey identifies continued concerns regarding personal protective equipment supplies with the chief issue being N95 respirator availability. As the pandemic continues, ICU clinicians anticipate a number of limited resources that may impact ICU care including personnel, capacity, and surge potential, as well as staff and subsequent family members exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. These persistent concerns greatly magnify personal stress, offering a therapeutic target for professional organization and facility intervention efforts.