Cross-cultural adaptation of the FRAIL scale for critically ill patients in Spain.

AIM: To translate and culturally adapt the FRAIL scale into Spanish and perform a preliminary test of diagnostic accuracy in patients admitted to intensive care units. DESIGN: Cross-sectional diagnostic study. METHODS: Five intensive care units (ICU) in Spain were participated. Stage 1: Three native Spanish-speaking bilingual translators familiar with the field of critical care translated the scale from English into Spanish. Stage 2: Three native English-speaking bilingual translators familiar with critical care medicine. Stage 3: Authors of the original scale compared the English original and back-translated versions of the scale. Stage 4: Five nurses with more than 5 years of ICU experience and five critical care physicians assessed the comprehension and relevance of each of the items of the Spanish version in 30 patients of 3 different age ranges (<50, 50-65 and >65 years). RESULTS: The FRAIL scale was translated and adapted cross-culturally for patients admitted to intensive care units in Spain. The process consisted of four stages: translation, back translation, comparison and pilot test. There was good correspondence between the original scale and the Spanish version in 100% of the items. The participating patients assessed the relevance (content validity) and comprehensibility (face validity) of each of the items of the first Spanish version. The relevance of some of the items scored low when the scale was used in patients younger than 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: We have cross-culturally adapted the FRAIL scale, originally in English, to Spanish for its use in the critical care medical setting in Spanish-speaking countries. IMPLICATIONS FOR PROFESSIONALS: Physicians and nurses can apply the new scale to all patients admitted to the intensive care units. Nursing care can be adapted according to frailty, trying to reduce the side effects of admission to these units for the most fragile patients. REPORTING METHOD: The manuscript's authors have adhered to the EQUATOR guidelines, using the COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: In a pilot clinical study, we applied the first version of the FRAIL-Spain scale to intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Five nurses with more than 5 years of ICU experience and five critical care physicians assessed the relevance (content validity) and comprehensibility (face validity) of the five items of the first Spanish version. Relevance was assessed using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (no relevance) to 4 (high relevance), and comprehensibility was assessed as poor, acceptable or good. Each health professional applied the scale to three patients (total number of patients = 30) of three different age ranges (<50, 50-65 and >65 years) and recorded the time of application of the scale to each patient. Although the frailty scales were initially created by geriatricians to be applied to the elders, there is little experience with their application in critically ill patients of any age. Therefore, more information is needed to determine the relevance of using this scale in critical care patients. In this pilot study, we considered that nurses and critical care physicians should evaluate frailty using this adapted scale in adult patients admitted to the Intensive Care Units.

Retirada accidental de sondas enterales en el paciente crítico / Accidental removal of feeding tubes in critical patients

Objetivo: evaluar el impacto de una sesión formativa en las tasas de retirada accidental (RA) [autorretirada y retirada por causa externa al paciente (CEP)] de la sonda enteral (SE) y en los niveles de analgosedación e identificación del delirio, en pacientes de un Servicio de Cuidados Intensivos y Grandes Quemados (UCI-UGQ).Método: estudio observacional prospectivo antes-después, realizado en una UCI-UGQ de 24 camas. Primer periodo: del 15-10-2018 al 15-01-2019, segundo periodo: del 15-07-2019 al 15-01-2020. Entre periodos se comunicaron los resultados y se hizo una sesión formativa (sujeción SE, valoración dolor, sedación y delirio). Incluidos todos los pacientes portadores de SE. Variables: demográficas, gravedad, motivo de retirada, evento adverso como consecuencia de la retirada o reinserción, dolor, sedación/agitación y delirio. Análisis: descriptivo y tasas de incidencia por 1.000 días dispositivo. Aprobado por CEIm.Resultados: ingresos en 2018 vs. 2019: 232 vs. 408 (1.586 vs. 3.149 días estancia); mujeres: 34% vs. 42%. SAPS III, Mediana (RIC): 57 (45-67) vs. 45 (33-54). Insertadas 156 vs. 295 SE. Tasas de RA por 1.000 días de dispositivo: global 56,68 vs. 45,87 (p= 0,42); autorretirada 48,13 vs. 37,72 (p= 0,36), CEP 8,56 vs. 8,15 (p= 0,90). No se registraron eventos adversos. En el momento de la autorretirada presentaban dolor (EVN/ESCID> 0) 26,6% vs. 19% pacientes; agitación (RASS> 0) 66,6% vs. 40,6% pacientes; delirio (CAM-ICU positivo) 33,3% vs. 20,3% pacientes.Conclusiones: tras la sesión formativa se observó una reducción no significativa en las tasas de RA. En las autorretiradas se comprobó un descenso significativo de la agitación y un descenso clínicamente relevante del dolor y presencia de delirio.(AU)

Objective: to assess the impact of a training session on accidental removal (AR) rates of the feeding tube (FT) [self-removal and removal due to a cause external to the patient (CEP] and on the levels of analgesia & sedation and delirium detection, in patients from an Intensive Care and Major Burns Unit (ICU-MBU).Method: an observational, before-and-after, prospective study, conducted in a 24-bed ICU-MBU- First period: October, 15th, 2018 to January, 15th, 2019: second period: July, 15th, 2019 to January, 15th, 2020. Results were reported between periods, and a training session was conducted (FT attachment, pain assessment, sedation, and delirium). All patients with FT were included. Variables: demographics, severity, reason for removal, adverse event as a consequence of removal or reinsertion, pain, sedation/agitation, and delirium. Analysis: descriptive, and incidence rates per 1,000 device days. Approved by the Drug Research Ethics Committee (CEIm).Results: hospitalizations in 2018 vs. 2019: 232 vs. 408 (1,586 vs. 3,149 hospitalization days); women: 34% vs. 42%. SAPS III, Median (IQR): 57 (45-67) vs. 45 (33-54). FTs inserted: 156 vs. 295. AR rates per 1,000 device days: overall 56.68 vs. 45.87 (p= 0.42); self-removal: 48.13 vs. 37.72 (p= 0.36), CEP 8.56 vs. 8.15 (p= 0.90). No adverse events were reported. At the time of self-removal, 26.6% vs. 19% patients presented pain (VAS/ESCID> 0); 66.6% vs. 40.6% patients presented agitation (RASS> 0, and 33.3% vs. 20.3% patients presented delirium (positive CAM-ICU).Conclusions: after the training session, a non-significant reduction in AR rates was observed. In cases of self-removal, a significant reduction in agitation was observed, as well as a clinically relevant reduction in pain and presence of delirium.(AU)

Effect of a nursing-implemented sedation protocol on weaning outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the implementation of a nursing-driven protocol of sedation on duration of intubation. DESIGN: Before-and-after prospective study. SETTING: 18-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Patients receiving mechanical ventilation longer than 48 hrs who were ready to wean. INTERVENTIONS: During the observational period, sedatives and analgesics were adjusted according to physicians' orders. During the intervention period, sedatives and analgesics were adjusted by nurses according to an algorithm-based sedation guideline, including a sedation scale. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 356 patients were included in the study (176 patients in the observational period and 189 patients in the intervention period). There were no significant differences in the duration of intubation between the two periods (median, 7 [interquartile range, 5-13] days vs. 7 [interquartile range, 5-9] days). In a Kaplan-Meier analysis, the probability of successful extubation was higher during the intervention period than during the observational period (log-rank = 0.02). During the intervention period, patients were more awake without a significant increment in the nurse workload; however, there was no significant decrease in the total doses of sedatives and analgesics administered. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a nursing-driven protocol of sedation may improve the probability of successful extubation in a heterogeneous population of mechanically ventilated patients.

Does sedation practice delay time to extubation?

UNLABELLED: Criteria for performing a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) have not been evaluated in controlled trials. An important component of these criteria is neurological status. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether physicians take mental status into consideration before performing an SBT in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study which included 355 mechanically ventilated patients. Daily assessments were made of whether the patients met criteria for performing a SBT. On the day a patient met the criteria, the level of sedation was evaluated using the Glasgow Coma Scale as modified by Cook and Palma (GCS-Cook) and it was registered whether or not the physician carried out an SBT. RESULTS: Two hundred and four patients (57%) underwent an SBT on the day they met the criteria (cohort 1) and in 151 patients (cohort 2) the SBT was delayed a median time of 1 day (interquartile range 1-2). There were differences in the GCS-Cook score on the day the criteria were met for performing an SBT (mean 13+/-3 points in cohort 1 versus 9+/-3 points in cohort 2; P<0.001). There were differences (P<0.001) between the cohorts in days of intubation and length of stay in the intensive care unit. CONCLUSIONS: Neurological status/level of sedation is a factor in the decision whether or not to perform a spontaneous breathing trial.

[Measurement of minimum disposable volume in the extraction of an analysis through an arterial catheter]. / Determinación del volumen mínimo desechable en laextracción de una analítica a través de un catéter arterial.

OBJECTIVE: Arterial catheters are used to extract blood samples. To maintain its permeability we use heparin solution, which may contaminate and alter the desired results. Our aim was to determine the volume of the minimum discards during blood extractions to avoid results that might be altered in the analysis of biochemistry. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective study was carried out in 18 beds intensive care unit. Patients with arterial catheter (Seldicath) were included, maintaining 500 UI of heparin in saline of 500 ml, at a pressure of 300 mmHg through pressurizer (Tycos). The dead space (DS) in the radial arterial system is 0.8 ml and 1 ml in the femoral. We analyzed the reliability of different discards comparing the following: 3 ml + DS, 7.5 ml + DS, 12 ml + DS and 16.5 ml + DS. The statistical analysis was carried out through ANOVA and t Student. RESULTS: In biochemistry, significant differences were not found except for potasium (p< 0.001) with 3 ml+DS during control, although it is not clinically relevant [difference through = 0.1 mEq/l (DS 0.2)]. Significant differences in prothrombina (p = 0.004) were found in coagulation, comparing 3 ml+DS and 16.5 ml + DS and in cefaline, comparing 7.5 ml + DS (p< 0.0001) and 16.5 ml + DS. There were not significant differences in the studies of gases. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that to reach a reliable analytical results, it is not necessary to discard more than 3 ml+DS in biochemistry and in blood gases, and to determine cefalina time would necessary to discard a minimum of 7.5 ml+DS.