Development and Implementation of a Multicomponent Protocol to Promote Sleep and Reduce Delirium in a Medical Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that poor sleep increases risk of delirium. Because delirium is associated with poor outcomes, institutions have developed protocols to improve sleep in critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of implementing a multicomponent sleep protocol. METHODS: In this prospective, preimplementation and postimplementation evaluation, adult patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) over 42 days were included. Outcomes evaluated included median delirium-free days, median Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) score, median optimal sleep nights, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The preimplementation group included 78 patients and postimplementation group, 84 patients. There was no difference in median delirium-free days (1 day [interquartile range, IQR, = 0-2.5] vs 1 day [IQR = 0-2]; P = 0.48), median RCSQ score (59.4 [IQR = 43.2-71.6] vs 61.2 [IQR = 49.9-75.5]; P = 0.20), median optimal sleep nights (1 night [IQR = 0-2] vs 1 night [IQR = 0-2]; P = 0.95), and in-hospital mortality (16.7% vs 17.9%, P = 1.00). Duration of MV (8 days [IQR = 4-10] vs 4 days [IQR = 2-7]; P = 0.03) and hospital LOS (13 days [IQR = 7-22.3] vs 8 days [IQR = 6-17]; P = 0.05) were shorter in the postimplementation group, but both were similar between groups after adjusting for age and severity of illness. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This report demonstrates that implementation of a multicomponent sleep protocol in everyday ICU care is feasible, but limitations exist when evaluating impact on measurable outcomes. Additional evaluations are needed to identify the most meaningful interventions and best practices for quantifying impact on patient outcomes.

Accuracy and safety of medication histories obtained at the time of intensive care unit admission of delirious or mechanically ventilated patients.

PURPOSE: Obtaining an accurate medication history from patients on hospital admission is a priority in pharmacy practice. Timely and accurate histories are imperative as they may help determine the etiology of illness and prevent medication errors. We conducted a quality improvement project to assess the accuracy of alternate-source medication histories obtained for critically ill patients who were delirious or mechanically ventilated at the time of intensive care unit admission. METHODS: Included patients were 18 years of age or older, admitted to the medical intensive care unit from August 2017 through January 2018, and had a medication history obtained from a family member or outpatient pharmacy due to active delirium or mechanical ventilation. Patients were directly interviewed after resolution of delirium or extubation. Discrepancies between the initial and follow-up histories were documented and categorized using the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) Index for Categorizing Medication Errors. RESULTS: Forty patients were included. One hundred four discrepancies were documented, with a median of 2 discrepancies per patient. The most common types of discrepancies were addition (51.9%), followed by omission (24.0%). NCC MERP index category A (51%) was the most common error classification identified. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies between initial and follow-up medication histories occurred at a frequent rate in delirious or mechanically ventilated patients; however, these discrepancies tended to be of low risk severity.

Evaluation of the Safety of Intravenous Thiamine Administration in a Large Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Previous literature describes increased incidence of infusion-related reactions when administering thiamine doses greater than 100 mg as an intravenous (IV) push. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the safety of administering higher doses of thiamine as IV push compared to infusion. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review was performed from June to October 2017. Included patients were aged 18 years or older and received 1 dose of IV thiamine 200 mg or greater. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 included patients who received 200-mg IV push and, group 2 included patients who received any dose greater than 200 mg. The primary objective was to quantify and compare rate of adverse reactions between the 2 groups. Institutional thiamine prescribing practices were examined. Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Fischer exact tests were performed. RESULTS: Sixty-six percent of patients were male, and the median age was 55 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 44-63). Fifty percent received 200-mg IV push, 20% received a combination of IV infusion and IV push, and 30% received IV infusion. Adverse reactions possibly due to thiamine administration occurred in 4 (2.0%) patients. One patient received 200 mg via IV infusion, while 3 received 200 mg via IV push. There was no significant difference in adverse reaction rate between IV push and IV infusion administrations (P = .640). CONCLUSION: Our results support administering thiamine doses of 200 mg or less as an IV push. Given lack of robust safety data, it is recommended to continue to dilute doses greater than 200 mg and infuse over 30 minutes.

Preventable Patient Harm: a Multidisciplinary, Bundled Approach to Reducing Clostridium difficile Infections While Using a Glutamate Dehydrogenase/Toxin Immunochromatographic Assay/Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Diagnostic Algorithm.

Health care facility-onset Clostridium difficile infections (HO-CDI) are an important national problem, causing increased morbidity and mortality. HO-CDI is an important metric for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service's (CMS) performance measures. Hospitals that fall into the worst-performing quartile in preventing hospital-acquired infections, including HO-CDI, may lose millions of dollars in reimbursement. Under pressure to reduce CDI and without a clear optimal method for C. difficile detection, health care facilities are questioning how best to use highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) to aid in the diagnosis of CDI. Our institution has used a two-step glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)/toxin immunochromatographic assay/NAAT algorithm since 2009. In 2016, our institution set an organizational goal to reduce our CDI rates by 10% by July 2017. We achieved a statistically significant reduction of 42.7% in our HO-CDI rate by forming a multidisciplinary group to implement and monitor eight key categories of infection prevention interventions over a period of 13 months. Notably, we achieved this reduction without modifying our laboratory algorithm. Significant reductions in CDI rates can be achieved without altering sensitive laboratory testing methods.

Comparison of Amphotericin B Bladder Irrigations Versus Fluconazole for the Treatment of Candiduria in Intensive Care Unit Patients.

BACKGROUND: Funguria occurs often in hospitalized patients and is most commonly caused by Candida species. Fluconazole is the agent of choice for most Candida urinary tract infections. Amphotericin B bladder irrigations (ABBI) are an alternative treatment option. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy of ABBI compared to fluconazole for the treatment of candiduria in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients admitted to ICUs at our institution with a positive urine culture for Candida species between 2005 and 2012. All patients receiving ABBI were included; patients receiving fluconazole for treatment of candiduria were matched by year. The primary endpoint was achievement of cure. RESULTS: There was no difference in cure between the ABBI and fluconazole groups (59.6% vs. 52.8%, p = 0.55). Clearance was higher in patients receiving ABBI (92.3% vs. 67.9%, p < 0.001). Logistic regression found that renal dysfunction predicted greater cure with ABBI therapy compared to fluconazole (OR 7.63, 95% CI 1.81-32.1). CONCLUSION: ABBI was equally efficacious in achieving overall cure, and resulted in greater clearance of candiduria compared to fluconazole. ABBI may be considered an alternative to fluconazole for the treatment of candiduria and may be preferred over fluconazole in patients with renal dysfunction.

Impact of an Antibiotic-specific Sepsis Bundle on Appropriate and Timely Antibiotic Administration for Severe Sepsis in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy within 1 h of severe sepsis diagnosis. Few sepsis bundles exist in the literature emphasizing initiation of specific antibiotic therapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of an antibiotic-specific sepsis bundle on the timely initiation of appropriate antibiotics. METHODS: For this before-and-after interventional study, the sepsis bundle at this 803-bed academic tertiary-care facility was redesigned to include specific antibiotic selection and dosing, based on suspected source of infection and susceptibility patterns. Protocol education and advertising was completed and bundle-specific antibiotics were put in the automated medication cabinet. RESULTS: Stepwise analysis of timely initiation of appropriate antibiotics included: 1) Was the initial antibiotic appropriate? 2) If so, was it initiated within 1 h of diagnosis? 3) If so, were all necessary appropriate antibiotics started? and 4) If so, were they started within 3 h of diagnosis? In comparing the 3-month-before group and 3-month-after group (n = 124), the appropriate initial antibiotic was started in 33.9% vs. 54.8% of patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.93, p = 0.03) and within 1 h in 22.6% vs. 14.5% of patients (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.62-4.92, p = 0.36), respectively. All necessary appropriate antibiotics were initiated in 16.1% vs. 12.9% of patients (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.42-4.10, p = 0.80), and within 3 h in 14.5% vs. 9.7% of patients, respectively (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.46-5.78, p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: An updated antibiotic-specific sepsis bundle, with antibiotics put in an automated medication cabinet, can result in improvements in the initiation of appropriate initial antibiotic therapy for severe sepsis in the emergency department.

Economic evaluation of propofol and lorazepam for critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.

OBJECTIVE: The economic implications of sedative choice in the management of patients receiving mechanical ventilation are unclear because of differences in costs and clinical outcomes associated with specific sedatives. Therefore, we aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the most commonly used sedatives prescribed for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Adopting the perspective of a hospital, we developed a probabilistic decision model to determine whether continuous propofol or intermittent lorazepam was associated with greater value when combined with daily awakenings. We also evaluated the comparative value of continuous midazolam in secondary analyses. We assumed that patients were managed in a medical intensive care unit and expected to require ventilation for > or = 48 hrs. Model inputs were derived from primary analysis of randomized controlled trial data, medical literature, Medicare reimbursement rates, pharmacy databases, and institutional data. MAIN RESULTS: We measured cost-effectiveness as costs per mechanical ventilator-free day within the first 28 days after intubation. Our base-case probabilistic analysis demonstrated that propofol dominated lorazepam in 91% of simulations and, on average, was both $6,378 less costly per patient and associated with more than three additional mechanical ventilator-free days. The model did not reveal clinically meaningful differences between propofol and midazolam on costs or measures of effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Propofol has superior value compared with lorazepam when used for sedation among the critically ill who require mechanical ventilation when used in the setting of daily sedative interruption.

A randomized trial of intermittent lorazepam versus propofol with daily interruption in mechanically ventilated patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare duration of mechanical ventilation for patients randomized to receive lorazepam by intermittent bolus administration vs. continuous infusions of propofol using protocols that include scheduled daily interruption of sedation. DESIGN: A randomized open-label trial enrolling patients from October 2001 to March 2004. SETTING: Medical intensive care units of two tertiary care medical centers. PATIENTS: Adult patients expected to require mechanical ventilation for >48 hrs and who required > or =10 mg of lorazepam or a continuous infusion of a sedative to achieve adequate sedation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive lorazepam by intermittent bolus administration or propofol by continuous infusion to maintain a Ramsay score of 2-3. Sedation was interrupted on a daily basis for both groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was median ventilator days. Secondary outcomes included 28-day ventilator-free survival, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and hospital mortality. Median ventilator days were significantly lower in the daily interruption propofol group compared with the intermittent bolus lorazepam group (5.8 vs. 8.4, p = .04). The difference was largest for hospital survivors (4.4 vs. 9.0, p = .006). There was a trend toward greater ventilator-free survival for patients in the daily interruption propofol group (median 18.5 days for propofol vs. 10.2 for lorazepam, p = .06). Hospital mortality was not different. CONCLUSIONS: For medical patients requiring >48 hrs of mechanical ventilation, sedation with propofol results in significantly fewer ventilator days compared with intermittent lorazepam when sedatives are interrupted daily.