Credentialing and Privileging of Acute Care Nurse Practitioners to Do Invasive Procedures: A Statewide Survey.

BACKGROUND: Acute care nurse practitioners have been successfully integrated into inpatient settings. They perform invasive procedures in the intensive care unit and other acute care settings. Although their general scope of practice is regulated at the state level, local and regional scope of practice is governed by hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To determine if credentialing and privileging of these nurses for invasive procedures varies depending on the institution. METHODS: Personnel in medical staff offices of 329 hospitals were surveyed by telephone with 6 questions. Data collected included acute care nurse practitioner and hospital demographics, frequency and type of procedures performed, proctoring and credentialing process, and the presence of residents and fellows at the institution. RESULTS: The response rate was 74.8% (246 hospitals). Among these, 48% (118) employed acute care nurse practitioners, of which 43.2% performed invasive procedures. Three hospitals were excluded from the final analysis. Of the hospitals that credentialed and granted privileges to the nurse practitioners for invasive procedures, 60.4% were teaching hospitals. A supervising physician was the proctor in 94% of the nonteaching hospitals and 100% of the teaching hospitals. The most common number of cases proctored was 4 to 7. CONCLUSION: The majority of hospitals employ acute care nurse practitioners. The most common method of privileging for invasive procedures is proctoring by a supervising physician. However, the amount of proctoring required before privileges and independent practice are granted varies by procedure and institution.

Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Bedside General and Cardiac Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Critically Ill Patients-Part II: Cardiac Ultrasonography.

OBJECTIVE: To establish evidence-based guidelines for the use of bedside cardiac ultrasound, echocardiography, in the ICU and equivalent care sites. METHODS: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to rank the "levels" of quality of evidence into high (A), moderate (B), or low (C) and to determine the "strength" of recommendations as either strong (strength class 1) or conditional/weak (strength class 2), thus generating six "grades" of recommendations (1A-1B-1C-2A-2B-2C). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for all questions with clinically relevant outcomes. RAND Appropriateness Method, incorporating the modified Delphi technique, was used in formulating recommendations related to terminology or definitions or in those based purely on expert consensus. The process was conducted by teleconference and electronic-based discussion, following clear rules for establishing consensus and agreement/disagreement. Individual panel members provided full disclosure and were judged to be free of any commercial bias. RESULTS: Forty-five statements were considered. Among these statements, six did not achieve agreement based on RAND appropriateness method rules (majority of at least 70%). Fifteen statements were approved as conditional recommendations (strength class 2). The rest (24 statements) were approved as strong recommendations (strength class 1). Each recommendation was also linked to its level of quality of evidence and the required level of echo expertise of the intensivist. Key recommendations, listed by category, included the use of cardiac ultrasonography to assess preload responsiveness in mechanically ventilated (1B) patients, left ventricular (LV) systolic (1C) and diastolic (2C) function, acute cor pulmonale (ACP) (1C), pulmonary hypertension (1B), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) (1C), right ventricular (RV) infarct (1C), the efficacy of fluid resuscitation (1C) and inotropic therapy (2C), presence of RV dysfunction (2C) in septic shock, the reason for cardiac arrest to assist in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (1B-2C depending on rhythm), status in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (1C), the presence of pericardial effusion (1C), cardiac tamponade (1B), valvular dysfunction (1C), endocarditis in native (2C) or mechanical valves (1B), great vessel disease and injury (2C), penetrating chest trauma (1C) and for use of contrast (1B-2C depending on indication). Finally, several recommendations were made regarding the use of bedside cardiac ultrasound in pediatric patients ranging from 1B for preload responsiveness to no recommendation for RV dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding several class 1 recommendations for the use of bedside cardiac ultrasound, echocardiography, in the ICU. Evidence-based recommendations regarding the appropriate use of this technology are a step toward improving patient outcomes in relevant patients and guiding appropriate integration of ultrasound into critical care practice.

Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Bedside General and Cardiac Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Critically Ill Patients-Part I: General Ultrasonography.

OBJECTIVE: To establish evidence-based guidelines for the use of bedside ultrasound by intensivists and specialists in the ICU and equivalent care sites for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes for organs of the chest, abdomen, pelvis, neck, and extremities. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to determine the strength of recommendations as either strong or conditional/weak and to rank the "levels" of quality of evidence into high (A), moderate (B), or low (C) and thus generating six "grades" of recommendation (1A-1B-1C-2A-2B-2C). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for all questions with clinically relevant outcomes. RAND appropriateness method, incorporating modified Delphi technique, was used in steps of GRADE that required panel judgment and for those based purely on expert consensus. The process was conducted by teleconference and electronic-based discussion, following clear rules for establishing consensus and agreement/disagreement. Individual panel members provided full disclosure and were judged to be free of any commercial bias. The process was conducted independent of industry funding. RESULTS: Twenty-four statements regarding the use of ultrasound were considered-three did not achieve agreement and nine were approved as conditional recommendations (strength class 2). The remaining 12 statements were approved as strong recommendations (strength class 1). Each recommendation was also linked to its level of quality of evidence. Key strong recommendations included the use of ultrasonography for ruling-in pleural effusion and assisting its drainage, ascites drainage, ruling-in pneumothorax, central venous cannulation, particularly for internal jugular and femoral sites, and for diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. Conditional recommendations were given to the use of ultrasound by the intensivist for diagnosis of acalculous cholecystitis, renal failure, and interstitial and parenchymal lung diseases. No recommendations were made regarding static (vs dynamic) ultrasound guidance of vascular access or the use of needle guide devices. CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding several recommendations for the use of ultrasound in the ICU. Evidence-based recommendations regarding the appropriate use of this technology are a step toward improving patient outcomes in relevant patients.

Making the financial case for a surgeon-directed critical care ultrasound program.

BACKGROUND: We sought to demonstrate that a well-staffed, surgeon-directed, critical care ultrasound program (CCUP) is financially sustainable and provides administrative and educational support for point-of-care ultrasound. METHODS: The CCUP provides a clinical service and training as well as conducts research. Initial costs, annual costs (C), revenue (R), and savings (S) were prospectively recorded. Using data from the first 3 years, we calculated the projected C, R, and S at 5 years. We determined CCUP sustainability by C < R and C < R + S at 3 years and 5 years. RESULTS: During 36 months, the CCUP covered four surgical intensive care units (55 beds). Start-up costs included one basic and one cardiovascular device per 25 beds and a data storage system linking reports and images to the electronic medical record ($203,650). Billing increased threefold from Years 1 to 3, with a 21% increase between Years 2 to 3. Yearly costs included 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) sonographer and 0.2 FTE surgeon ($106,025); this was increased to 1 FTE and 0.25 FTE, respectively, for Years 4 and 5. The total 3-year cost was $521,725 and projected to be $863,325 by Year 5. The total 3-year revenue was $290,775 and projected to be $891,600 at 5 years. The total 3-year savings associated with the CCUP was $600,035 and is projected to be $1,194,220. With the use of the C < R, the CCUP meets operating expenses at Year 3 and covers overall cost at 5 years. If savings are included, then the CCUP is sustainable by its third year and is potentially profitable by Year 5. CONCLUSION: A surgeon-directed CCUP is financially sustainable, addresses administrative issues, and provides valuable training in point-of-care ultrasound.

Variation in the management of adolescent patients with blunt abdominal solid organ injury between adult versus pediatric trauma centers: an analysis of a statewide trauma database.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of adolescent trauma patients with blunt abdominal solid organ injury (SOI) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to identify management differences in adolescents with SOI treated at adult trauma centers (ATC) versus pediatric trauma centers (PTC). We hypothesized that adolescents with SOI would undergo different treatment at ATC and PTC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation database from 2005-2010 was performed. Adolescent patients (13-18 y old) with SOI (spleen, liver, and kidney injury) were included. Patient baseline characteristics and care processes for each injury were compared between ATC and PTC. RESULTS: A total of 1532 patients with at least one SOI were identified: 946 patients had a splenic injury, 505 had a liver injury, and 424 had a kidney injury. Spleen and liver procedures were performed more often at ATC than at PTC irrespective of injury grade (respectively, 16.1% versus 3.2%, 5.9% versus 0%; P < 0.01). Transarterial embolization for splenic injury was more frequently performed at ATC (2.8% versus 0.6%; P = 0.02). After adjusting for potential confounding factors, care at PTC was significantly associated with lower odds of splenic procedure for patients with splenic injury (OR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.08-0.36, P < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis of nontransfer patients, care at PTC remained significantly associated with lower odds of splenic procedure (OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.10-0.59, P = 0.002) despite higher median injury severity score than ATC. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in the management of adolescents with SOI were identified in Pennsylvania. Operative intervention for SOI was more often performed at ATC than at PTC. Further study will be needed to address the impact of these disparities on patient outcomes.

Injured adolescents, not just large children: difference in care and outcome between adult and pediatric trauma centers.

Adolescent injury victims receive care at adult trauma centers (ATCs) and pediatric trauma centers (PTCs). The purpose of this study was to identify care variations and their impact on the outcome of adolescent trauma patients treated at PTC versus ATC. We queried the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation database for trauma patients between 13 and 18 years of age from 2005 to 2010. Mortality and hospital complication rates between ATC and PTC were compared in univariable and multivariable analysis. In addition, the differences in the delivery of care were also compared. Of 9033 total patients, 6027 (67%) received care at an ATC. Patients in the ATC group were older (16.7 vs. 14.9 years, P < 0.001) and more severely injured (Injury Severity Score: 14.5 vs. 12.2, P < 0.001). Admission diagnostic computed tomography (CT), emergent laparotomy and craniotomy, blood transfusion, and drug screening were more frequently performed at an ATC. After adjustment for potential confounders in multivariable regression models, treatment at a PTC was significantly associated with fewer CTs for transferred patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.28; P < 0.001) and with less frequent emergent laparotomy for all patients (OR, 0.65; P = 0.007). The ATC group had a significantly higher hospital mortality rate (2.9 vs. 0.9%, P < 0.001) and complication rate (9.7 vs. 4.8%, P < 0.001). However, these outcomes were not significantly different between PTC and ATC in multivariable regression models. In the state of Pennsylvania, there were no significant differences in risk-adjusted outcomes between PTC and ATC despite significant difference in use of CT scanning and emergent laparotomy.

Blunt hollow viscus and mesenteric injury: still underrecognized.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of more accurate imaging modalities, specifically multidetector computed tomography (MDCT), the diagnosis of non-ischemic (NI-) and ischemic (I-) blunt hollow viscus and mesenteric injury (BHVMI) remains challenging. We hypothesized that BHVMI can be still missed with newer generations of MDCT and that patients with I-BHVMI have a poorer outcome than those with NI-BHVMI. METHODS: We performed an eight-year retrospective review at a level 1 trauma center. Ischemic-BHVMI was defined as devascularization confirmed at laparotomy. Non-ischemic-BHVMI included perforation, laceration, and hematoma without devascularization. The sensitivity of each generation of MDCT for BHVMI was calculated. Potential predictors and outcomes of I-BHVMI were compared to the NI-BHVMI group. RESULTS: Of 7,875 blunt trauma patients, 67 patients (0.8 %) were included in the BHVMI group; 13 patients did not have any CT findings suggestive of BHVMI (sensitivity 81 %), and 11 of them underwent surgical intervention without delay (<5 h). Newer generations of MDCT were not associated with higher sensitivity. Patients with I-BHVMI had a significantly higher rate of delayed laparotomy ≥ 12 h (23 % versus 2 %; p = 0.01) and a significantly longer length of hospital stay (median 14 versus 9 days; p = 0.02) than those with NI-BHVMI. CONCLUSIONS: Even using an advanced imaging technique, the diagnosis of I-BHVMI can be delayed, with significant negative impact on patient outcome.

Postoperative complications: delirium.

Delirium is a common feature of the postoperative period, leading to increased morbidity and mortality and significant costs. Multiple factors predispose a patient to delirium in its hypoactive, hyperactive, or mixed forms. Tools have been validated for its quick and accurate identification to ensure timely and effective multidisciplinary intervention and treatment. A significant percentage of patients may require placement in skilled nursing facilities or similar care environments because of the long-lasting effects. The physician must be vigilant in the search for and identification of all forms of delirium and must effectively treat the underlying medical condition and symptoms.

Academic time at a level 1 trauma center: no resident, no problem?

BACKGROUND: Globally, the compliance of resident work-hour restrictions has no impact on trauma outcome. However, the effect of protected education time (PET), during which residents are unavailable to respond to trauma patients, has not been studied. We hypothesized that PET has no impact on the outcome of trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of relevant patients at an academic level I trauma center. During PET, a trauma attending and advanced practice providers (APPs) responded to trauma activations. PGY1, 3, and 4 residents were also available at all other times. The outcome of new trauma patient activations during Thursday morning 3-hours resident PET was compared with same time period on other weekdays (non-PET) using a univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: From January 2005 to April 2010, a total of 5968 trauma patients were entered in the registry. Of these, 178 patients (2.98%) were included for study (37 PET and 141 non-PET). The mean injury severity score (ISS) was 16.2. Although no significant difference were identified in mortality, complications, or length of stay (LOS), we do see that length of emergency department stay (ED-LOS) tends to be longer during PET, although not significantly (314 vs 381 minutes, p = 0.74). On the multiple logistic regression model, PET was not a significant factor of complications, LOS, or ED-LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Few trauma activations occur during PET. New trauma activations can be staffed safely by trauma activations and APPs. However, there could be some delays in transferring patients to appropriate disposition. Additional study is required to determine the effect of PET on existing trauma inpatients.