Critical care outreach during the COVID-19 pandemic: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, the Critical Care Outreach Team (CCOT) remained operational to provide critical care support to acutely ill and deteriorating patients on the wards. We aimed to evaluate the demand and efficacy of the critical care outreach service during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: We prospectively evaluated all patients referred to critical care outreach enrolled during a twelve-month period. We reported the cumulative number of activities and interventions and baseline characteristics, acuity level and patients' clinical outcome. The rate of ICU admissions, activity plan, patients' acuity and mortality are compared to historical data pre-pandemic. RESULTS: Amongst 4849 patients referred, 3913 had a clinical review and of those 895 were COVID-19 positive. Non-invasive ventilation was mostly delivered to COVID-19 patients (COVID-19 +VE: 853/895, 95% vs. COVID-19 -VE: 119/3018, 4%) alongside awake prone positioning (COVID-19 +VE: 232/895, 26% vs. COVID-19 -VE: 0/3018, 0%). Compared to pre-pandemic, the cumulative number of patients assessed increased (observed: 3913 vs. historical: 3615; p = 0.204), patients meeting Level 2 acuity were higher (observed: 51% vs. historical: 21%; p = 0.003), but ICU admission rate did not increase significantly (observed: 12% vs. historical: 9%; p = 0.065), and greater mortality rate (observed: 14% vs. historical: 8%; p = 0.046) was observed. CONCLUSION: Critical care outreach bridges the gap between the intensive care unit and general wards and supports the concept of 'critical care without walls' acting as a valuable resource in optimizing and triaging acutely unwell patients and potentially averting critical care admissions. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The COVID-19 pandemic has generated an unprecedented surge of deteriorating and critically ill patients with has caused severe and sustained pressures on intensive care units (ICUs) and general wards. Acutely ill patients can deteriorate quickly, and early recognition is vital to commence critical intervention on the wards or transfer timely to ICU. The Critical Care Outreach Team can help staff and optimize acutely ill and deteriorating patients by providing timely critical care interventions at the patient bedside.

A multidisciplinary safety briefing for acutely ill and deteriorating patients: A quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: Safety briefings can help promoting situational awareness, interprofessional communication and improve patient safety. LOCAL PROBLEM: A clinical survey highlighted that 90% of the participants including the medical team and the critical care outreach team nurses perceived the meeting for escalating acutely ill and deteriorating patients during the out-of-hours period (20.00 to 08.00) to have unconstructive and unwelcoming atmosphere with belittling, hostility and unhelpful criticisms. The participants reported that the communication across teams lacked in structure and clear information given; but staff also self-reported lacking confidence in communicating key issues. METHOD: A quality improvement project with Plan-Do-Study-Act was adopted to design and implement a dedicated multidisciplinary safety briefing with a structured format. RESULTS: The multidisciplinary safety briefing was to 90% of clinicians, and it took a median of 10 min to complete. Delayed referrals to the critical care outreach team were reduced by 46%. Positive changes included increased situational awareness and clearer communication across teams. Barriers identified were variable usage and need for face-to-face presence. Considering all the findings and the time constraint during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we changed to a telephonic safety briefing directly to the team leaders. CONCLUSION: A structured multidisciplinary safety briefing can improve patient safety and support management of deteriorating and acutely ill patients on the wards during the out-of-hours period.

Awake Prone Positioning for Non-Intubated COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Awake prone positioning (APP) has been widely applied in non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, the results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of APP and to identify the subpopulations that may benefit the most from it. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases from inception to August 2022 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022342426). We included only RCTs comparing APP with supine positioning or standard of care with no prone positioning. Our primary outcomes were the risk of intubation and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included the need for escalating respiratory support, length of ICU and hospital stay, ventilation-free days, and adverse events. RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs and showed that APP reduced the risk of requiring intubation in the overall population (RR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.95; moderate certainty). Following the subgroup analyses, a greater benefit was observed in two patient cohorts: those receiving a higher level of respiratory support (compared with those receiving conventional oxygen therapy) and those in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (compared to patients in non-ICU settings). APP did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.77-1.11; moderate certainty) and did not increase the risk of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, APP likely reduced the risk of requiring intubation, but failed to demonstrate a reduction in overall mortality risk. The benefits of APP are most noticeable in those requiring a higher level of respiratory support in an ICU environment.

High flow nasal oxygen and awake prone positioning - Two allies against COVID-19: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus disease-2 (SARS-CoV-2) can lead to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) with possible multisystemic involvement. Ventilation/perfusion mismatch and shunt increase are critical determinants of hypoxemia. Understanding hypoxemia and the mechanisms involved in its genesis is essential to determine the optimal therapeutic strategy. High flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and awake prone positioning (APP) in patients with COVID-19 AHRF showed promising benefits. The aim of this systematic review was to depict current situation around the combined use of HFNO and APP in patients with COVID-19 AHRF. Particularly, to investigate and report the pathophysiological rationale for adopting this strategy and to evaluate the (1) criteria for initiation, (2) timing, monitoring and discontinuation, and to assess the (3) impact of HFNO/ APP on outcome. METHODS: We performed a systematic search collecting the articles present in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases with the following keywords: COVID-19 pneumonia, high flow nasal oxygen, awake prone position ventilation. RESULTS: Thirteen studies displayed inclusion criteria and were included, accounting for 1242 patients who received HFNO/ APP. The combination of HFNO/ APP has an encouraging pathophysiological rationale for implementing this technique. The recognition of patients who can benefit from HFNO/ APP is difficult and there are no validated protocols to start, monitoring, and discontinue HFNO/ APP therapy. The most used method to monitor the efficacy and failure of this combined technique are oxygenation indexes, but discontinuation techniques are inconsistently and poorly described limiting possible generatability. Finally, this technique provided no clear benefits on outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic search provided positive feedbacks for improving the utilization of this combination technique, although we still need further investigation about methods to guide timing, management, and discontinuation, and to assess the intervention effect on outcome.

Physical and psychological impairment in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are at risk of long-term comorbidities. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and physical and psychological impairments in ARDS survivors from 3 months to 5 yr follow-up after ICU discharge. METHODS: Systematic search of PubMed, AMED, BNI, and CINAHL databases from January 2000 to date. The primary outcome was HRQoL. Secondary outcomes included physical, pulmonary, and cognitive function, mental health, and return to work. A secondary analysis compared classical ARDS with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease-2 (SARS-CoV-2) ARDS. RESULTS: Forty-eight papers met inclusion criteria including 11 693 patients; of those 85% (n=9992) had classical ARDS and 14% (n=1632) had SARS-CoV-2 ARDS. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary score mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 46 (41-50) at 3 months, 39 (36-41) at 6 months, and 40 (38-43) at 12 months. The SF-36 mental component summary mean score was 53 (48-57) at 3 months, 45 (40-50) at 6 months, and 44 (42-47) at 12 months. SF-36 values were lower than those found in the normal population up to 5 yr. The predictive distance walked in 6 min was 57% (45-69), 63% (56-69), and 66% (62-70) at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Classical ARDS and SARS-CoV-2 ARDS showed no difference in HRQoL and physical function; however, patients with classical ARDS had higher incidence of anxiety and depression (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: ARDS survivors can experience reduced HRQoL and physical and mental health impairment. These symptoms might not recover completely up to 5 yr after ICU discharge. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021296506.

Prone positioning for non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning in non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients is becoming widely applied in practice alongside noninvasive respiratory support. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effect, timing, and populations that might benefit from awake proning regarding oxygenation, mortality, and tracheal intubation compared with supine position in hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, and BMJ Best Practice until August 2021 (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] registration: CRD42021250322). Studies included comprise least-wise 20 adult patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome or coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Fourteen studies fulfilled the selection criteria and 2352 patients were included; of those patients, 99% (n=2332/2352) had COVID-19. Amongst 1041 (44%) patients who were placed in the prone position, 1021 were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The meta-analysis revealed significant improvement in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio (mean difference -23.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -34.80 to 11.39; P=0.0001; I2=26%) after prone positioning. In patients with COVID-19, lower mortality was found in the group placed in the prone position (150/771 prone vs 391/1457 supine; odds ratio [OR] 0.51; 95% CI: 0.32-0.80; P=0.003; I2=48%), but the tracheal intubation rate was unchanged (284/824 prone vs 616/1271 supine; OR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.43-1.22; P=0.220; I2=75%). Overall proning was tolerated for a median of 4 h (inter-quartile range: 2-16). CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning can improve oxygenation amongst non-intubated patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure when applied for at least 4 h over repeated daily episodes. Awake proning appears safe, but the effect on tracheal intubation rate and survival remains uncertain.

Effectiveness of prone position in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19: A prospective cohort study.

We present a single centre study describing the effect of awake prone position (PP) on oxygenation and clinical outcomes in spontaneously breathing patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Between 1st March and 30th April 2020, forty eight of 138 patients managed outside of the critical care unit with facemask oxygen, high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), underwent PP. Prone position was associated with significant improvement in oxygenation, lower ICU admission, tracheal intubation, and shorter ICU length of stay. Lack of response to PP may be an indicator of treatment failure, requiring early escalation.