ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The increasing frequency of extreme heat events has led to a growing number of heat-related injuries and illnesses in ICUs. The objective of this review was to summarize and critically appraise evidence for the management of heat-related illnesses and injuries for critical care multiprofessionals. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from inception through August 2023 for studies reporting on heat-related injury and illness in the setting of the ICU. STUDY SELECTION: English-language systematic reviews, narrative reviews, meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, and observational studies were prioritized for review. Bibliographies from retrieved articles were scanned for articles that may have been missed. DATA EXTRACTION: Data regarding study methodology, patient population, management strategy, and clinical outcomes were qualitatively assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Several risk factors and prognostic indicators for patients diagnosed with heat-related illness and injury have been identified and reported in the literature. Effective management of these patients has included various cooling methods and fluid replenishment. Drug therapy is not effective. Multiple organ dysfunction, neurologic injury, and disseminated intravascular coagulation are common complications of heat stroke and must be managed accordingly. Burn injury from contact with hot surfaces or pavement can occur, requiring careful evaluation and possible excision and grafting in severe cases. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of heat-related illness and injury is increasing, and rapid initiation of appropriate therapies is necessary to optimize outcomes. Additional research is needed to identify effective methods and strategies to achieve rapid cooling, the role of immunomodulators and anticoagulant medications, the use of biomarkers to identify organ failure, and the role of artificial intelligence and precision medicine.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The Fundamental Critical Care Support Course (FCCS) is a standardized multidisciplinary program designed to educate participants on the basics of identification and management of patients with critical illness. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of FCCS participation on confidence in the assessment and management of critically ill patients and attitudes towards multidisciplinary education and interprofessional care in a multidisciplinary group of participants. METHODS: Participants enrolled in the FCCS course from May 2018 to November 2019 were solicited to participate in a series of surveys evaluating their course experience and confidence in critical care. Attitudes towards multidisciplinary education and interprofessional care were evaluated using the Student Perceptions of Interprofessional Clinical Education-Revised Instrument version 2 (SPICE-R2) tool. A prospective pre- and post-design with a self-report survey including retrospective pre-training assessment and a 3-month follow-up was conducted. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statics and non-parametric methods. RESULTS: 321 (97.9%) of the course participants enrolled in the study and completed the confidence survey and SPICE-R2 tool pre-course. Nurses (113, 35.4%) and physicians (110, 34.4%) made up the largest groups of participants, although physician assistants and paramedics were also well represented. Confidence in recognition and management of critical illness significantly improved across all studied domains after course completion, with the mean total confidence score improving from 32.96 pre-course to 41.10 post-course, P < 0.001. Attitudes towards multidisciplinary education and interprofessional care also improved (mean score 41.37 pre-course vs 42.71 post-course, P < 0.001), although pre-course numbers were higher than expected which limited the significance to only certain domains. DISCUSSION: In a multidisciplinary group, completion of FCCS training led to increased confidence in all aspects of critical illness measured. A modest increase in attitudes regarding multidisciplinary education and interprofessional care was also demonstrated. Further study is needed to assess whether this increased confidence translates to improvements in patient care and outcomes.
