A survey of critical care nurses' practices and perceptions surrounding early intravenous antibiotic initiation during septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Delays in antibiotic administration after severe sepsis recognition increases mortality. While physician and pharmacy-related barriers to early antibiotic initiation have been well evaluated, those factors that affect the speed by which critical care nurses working in either the emergency department or the intensive care unit setting initiate antibiotic therapy remains poorly characterized. AIM: To evaluate the knowledge, practices and perceptions of critical care nurses regarding antibiotic initiation in patients with newly recognised septic shock. METHODS: A validated survey was distributed to 122 critical care nurses at one 320-bed academic institution with a sepsis protocol advocating intravenous(IV) antibiotic initiation within 1hour of shock recognition. RESULTS: Among 100 (82%) critical care nurses responding, nearly all (98%) knew of the existence of the sepsis protocol. However, many critical care nurses stated they would optimise blood pressure [with either fluid (38%) or both fluid and a vasopressor (23%)] before antibiotic initiation. Communicated barriers to rapid antibiotic initiation included: excessive patient workload (74%), lack of awareness IV antibiotic(s) ordered (57%) or delivered (69%), need for administration of multiple non-antibiotic IV medications (54%) and no IV access (51%). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple nurse-related factors influence IV antibiotic(s) initiation speed and should be incorporated into sepsis quality improvement efforts.

Physician report cards and rankings yield long-lasting hand hygiene compliance exceeding 90%.

INTRODUCTION: Hand hygiene is an effective, low-cost intervention that prevents the spread of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Despite mandatory education and reminders, compliance by physicians in our hospital remained stubbornly low. Our objective was to study whether surveillance by our unit coordinator (secretary) paired with regular feedback to chiefs of service would increase physician hand hygiene compliance in the ICU. METHOD: The ICU unit coordinator was trained to observe and measure hand hygiene compliance. Data were collected on hand hygiene compliance at room entry and exit for 9 months. Percentage compliance for each medical and surgical subspecialty was reported to chiefs of service at the end of each month. Comparative rankings by service were widely distributed throughout the physician organization and the medical center. RESULTS: The hand hygiene compliance rate among physicians increased from 65.1% to 91.6% during the study period (p < 0.0001). More importantly in the succeeding 24 months after study completion, physician hand hygiene compliance remained >90% in every month. CONCLUSIONS: Physician hand hygiene compliance increased as a consequence of the surveillance conducted by a full-time ICU team member, leading to a highly significant increase in the number of observations. In turn, this allowed for specific comparative monthly feedback to individual chiefs of service. Over the next 2 years after the study ended, these gains were sustained, suggesting an enduring culture change in physician behavior.