Clinical protocols and trainee knowledge about mechanical ventilation.

CONTEXT: Clinical protocols are associated with improved patient outcomes; however, they may negatively affect medical education by removing trainees from clinical decision making. OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between critical care training with mechanical ventilation protocols and subsequent knowledge about ventilator management. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort equivalence study, linking a national survey of mechanical ventilation protocol availability in accredited US pulmonary and critical care fellowship programs with knowledge about mechanical ventilation among first-time examinees of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Critical Care Medicine Certification Examination in 2008 and 2009. Exposure to protocols was defined as high intensity if an examinee's training intensive care unit had 2 or more protocols for at least 3 years and as low intensity if 0 or 1 protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge, measured by performance on examination questions specific to mechanical ventilation management, calculated as a mechanical ventilation score using item response theory. The score is standardized to a mean (SD) of 500 (100), and a clinically important difference is defined as 25. Variables included in adjusted analyses were birth country, residency training country, and overall first-attempt score on the ABIM Internal Medicine Certification Examination. RESULTS: Ninety of 129 programs (70%) responded to the survey. Seventy-seven programs (86%) had protocols for ventilation liberation, 66 (73%) for sedation management, and 54 (60%) for lung-protective ventilation at the time of the survey. Eighty-eight (98%) of these programs had trainees who completed the ABIM Critical Care Medicine Certification Examination, totaling 553 examinees. Of these 88 programs, 27 (31%) had 0 protocols, 19 (22%) had 1 protocol, 24 (27%) had 2 protocols, and 18 (20%) had 3 protocols for at least 3 years. Forty-two programs (48%) were classified as high intensity and 46 (52%) as low intensity, with 304 trainees (55%) and 249 trainees (45%), respectively. In bivariable analysis, no difference in mean scores was observed in high-intensity (497; 95% CI, 486-507) vs low-intensity programs (497; 95% CI, 485-509). Mean difference was 0 (95% CI, -16 to 16), with a positive value indicating a higher score in the high-intensity group. In multivariable analyses, no association of training was observed in a high-intensity program with mechanical ventilation score (adjusted mean difference, -5.36; 95% CI, -20.7 to 10.0). CONCLUSION: Among first-time ABIM Critical Care Medicine Certification Examination examinees, training in a high-intensity ventilator protocol environment compared with a low-intensity environment was not associated with worse performance on examination questions about mechanical ventilation management.

Performance of an automated electronic acute lung injury screening system in intensive care unit patients.

OBJECTIVE: Lung protective ventilation reduces mortality in patients with acute lung injury, but underrecognition of acute lung injury has limited its use. We recently validated an automated electronic acute lung injury surveillance system in patients with major trauma in a single intensive care unit. In this study, we assessed the system's performance as a prospective acute lung injury screening tool in a diverse population of intensive care unit patients. DESIGN: Patients were screened prospectively for acute lung injury over 21 wks by the automated system and by an experienced research coordinator who manually screened subjects for enrollment in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Clinical Trials Network (ARDSNet) trials. Performance of the automated system was assessed by comparing its results with the manual screening process. Discordant results were adjudicated blindly by two physician reviewers. In addition, a sensitivity analysis using a range of assumptions was conducted to better estimate the system's performance. SETTING: The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, an academic medical center and ARDSNet center (1994-2006). PATIENTS: Intubated patients in medical and surgical intensive care units. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 1270 patients screened, 84 were identified with acute lung injury (incidence of 6.6%). The automated screening system had a sensitivity of 97.6% (95% confidence interval, 96.8-98.4%) and a specificity of 97.6% (95% confidence interval, 96.8-98.4%). The manual screening algorithm had a sensitivity of 57.1% (95% confidence interval, 54.5-59.8%) and a specificity of 99.7% (95% confidence interval, 99.4-100%). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated a range for sensitivity of 75.0-97.6% of the automated system under varying assumptions. Under all assumptions, the automated system demonstrated higher sensitivity than and comparable specificity to the manual screening method. CONCLUSIONS: An automated electronic system identified patients with acute lung injury with high sensitivity and specificity in diverse intensive care units of a large academic medical center. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of automated prompts that such a system can initiate on the use of lung protective ventilation in patients with acute lung injury.

The availability of clinical protocols in US teaching intensive care units.

PURPOSE: Clinical protocols to standardize care may improve patient outcomes but worsen trainee education. Our objective was to determine the availability of clinical protocols in teaching medical intensive care units (ICUs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We administered an electronic questionnaire regarding protocol availability in 5 specific clinical areas. All directors of adult medical ICUs in US teaching hospitals were eligible to participate. RESULTS: The response rate was 70%. Eighty-six percent of ICU directors reported availability of protocols for ventilation liberation, 73% for sedation, 62% for sepsis resuscitation, 60% for lung-protective ventilation, and 48% for life support withdrawal. Ventilation liberation protocols are most often started and driven by respiratory therapists (40% and 90%); sedation started by residents (41%) and driven by nurses (95%); sepsis resuscitation started and driven by residents (49% and 46%); lung-protective ventilation started by attending physicians (39%) and driven by respiratory therapists (67%); and life support withdrawal started by attending physicians (93%) and driven by nurses (47%). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in clinical protocol availability among teaching hospitals. Further study of the effect of protocols on education is needed.

Effect of work-hours regulations on intensive care unit mortality in United States teaching hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: : To examine the association of the resident work-hours reform with mortality for patients in medical and surgical intensive care units. The United States instituted restrictions on resident work-hours in July 2003. The clinical impact of this reform on critically ill patients is unknown. DESIGN: : A retrospective cohort study, comparing mortality trends before and after July 1, 2003, in teaching and nonteaching hospitals. SETTING AND PATIENTS: : The study included 230,151 adult patients admitted to 104 different intensive care units at 40 hospitals participating in the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV clinical information system from July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2005. INTERVENTIONS: : None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: : The primary exposure was the date of admission, relative to the implementation of the work-hours regulations. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; a secondary outcome was intensive care unit mortality. The analysis included 79,377 patients in 12 academic hospitals; 73,580 patients in 12 community hospitals with residents; and 77,194 patients in 16 nonteaching hospitals. Risk-adjusted mortality improved in hospitals of all teaching levels during the study period. There were no significant differences in the mortality trends between hospitals of different teaching intensities, as demonstrated by nonsignificant interaction between time and teaching status (global test of interaction, p = .56). CONCLUSIONS: : There was a decrease in in-hospital mortality in intensive care unit patients during the years of observation. This decrease was not associated with hospital teaching status, suggesting no net positive or negative association of the resident work-hours regulations with a major patient-centered outcome.

Bronchiectasis, part 2: Management.

Systemic antibiotics are the mainstay of the management of acute exacerbations of bronchiectasis. Antibiotic selection should include coverage for Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae; particular attention also should be paid to the presence of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas species. The duration of antibiotic therapy is not well-established, but most clinicians recommend a prolonged course, often longer than 3 weeks. There is some evidence that long-term low-dose macrolide therapy can reduce the incidence of acute exacerbations and decrease sputum production. There also may be a role for the use of inhaled antibiotics. Airway clearance strategies, such as chest percussion and postural drainage, are clearly useful in patients with cystic fibrosis and may be useful in other patients with bronchiectasis. Surgical resection can be considered if a patient has localized disease that is refractory to medical management or if he/she is unwilling to undergo long-term medical therapy.

Purulent pericarditis caused by group a streptococcus.

Purulent pericarditis is a rare disease that is most often caused by organisms such as Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, viridans streptococci, Haemophilus influenzae, and anaerobic bacteria. We present an unusual case of purulent pericarditis caused by Streptococcus pyogenes, Lancefield group A streptococcus (GAS), and we provide a review of the literature.