Comparison of 6-month outcomes of sepsis versus non-sepsis critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Data on long-term outcomes after sepsis-associated critical illness have mostly come from small cohort studies, with no information about the incidence of new disability. We investigated whether sepsis-associated critical illness was independently associated with new disability at 6 months after ICU admission compared with other types of critical illness. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort study in six metropolitan intensive care units in Australia. Adult patients were eligible if they had been admitted to the ICU and received more than 24 h of mechanical ventilation. There was no intervention. RESULTS: The primary outcome was new disability measured with the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS) 12 level score compared between baseline and 6 months. Between enrollment and follow-up at 6 months, 222/888 (25%) patients died, 100 (35.5%) with sepsis and 122 (20.1%) without sepsis (P < 0.001). Among survivors, there was no difference for the incidence of new disability at 6 months with or without sepsis, 42/106 (39.6%) and 106/300 (35.3%) (RD, 0.00 (- 10.29 to 10.40), P = 0.995), respectively. In addition, there was no difference in the severity of disability, health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, return to work, financial distress or cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to mechanically ventilated patients of similar acuity and length of stay without sepsis, patients with sepsis admitted to ICU have an increased risk of death, but survivors have a similar risk of new disability at 6 months. Trial registration NCT03226912, registered July 24, 2017.

The role of the medical emergency team in end-of-life care: a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of medical emergency teams in end-of-life care planning. DESIGN: One month prospective audit of medical emergency team calls. SETTING: Seven university-affiliated hospitals in Australia, Canada, and Sweden. PATIENTS: Five hundred eighteen patients who received a medical emergency team call over 1 month. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 652 medical emergency team calls in 518 patients, with multiple calls in 99 (19.1%) patients. There were 161 (31.1%) patients with limitations of medical therapy during the study period. The limitation of medical therapy was instituted in 105 (20.3%) and 56 (10.8%) patients before and after the medical emergency team call, respectively. In 78 patients who died with a limitation of medical therapy in place, the last medical emergency team review was on the day of death in 29.5% of patients, and within 2 days in another 28.2%.Compared with patients who did not have a limitation of medical therapy, those with a limitation of medical therapy were older (80 vs. 66 yrs; p < .001), less likely to be male (44.1% vs. 55.7%; p = .014), more likely to be medical admissions (70.8% vs. 51.3%; p < .001), and less likely to be admitted from home (74.5% vs. 92.2%, p < .001). In addition, those with a limitation of medical therapy were less likely to be discharged home (22.4% vs. 63.6%; p < .001) and more likely to die in hospital (48.4% vs. 12.3%; p < .001). There was a trend for increased likelihood of calls associated with limitations of medical therapy to occur out of hours (51.0% vs. 43.8%, p = .089). CONCLUSIONS: Issues around end-of-life care and limitations of medical therapy arose in approximately one-third of calls, suggesting a mismatch between patient needs for end-of-life care and resources at participating hospitals. These calls frequently occur in elderly medical patients and out of hours. Many such patients do not return home, and half die in hospital. There is a need for improved advanced care planning in our hospitals, and to confirm our findings in other organizations.

Point prevalence of patients fulfilling MET criteria in ten MET equipped hospitals. The methodology of the RESCUE study.

OBJECTIVE: The RESCUE study examined the prevalence of patients at risk of a medical emergency in acute care settings by assessing the prevalence of cases where patients fulfil the hospital-specific criteria for MET activation. This article will detail the study methodology including the ethics applications and approvals process, organisational preparation, research staff training, tools for data collection, as well as barriers encountered during the conduct of the study. DESIGN AND SETTING: A point prevalence design conducted at 10 hospitals, comprising of private and public, secondary and tertiary referral, ICU equipped, metropolitan and regional settings. PATIENTS: All inpatients were eligible except intensive care and psychiatric patients. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: On a single day consenting inpatients in each hospital had a single set of vital signs obtained, their observation chart reviewed and followed up for MET activations, unplanned ICU admissions, cardiac arrests and 30 and 60 day mortality. Of 2199 eligible patients, 1688 (76.76%) were assessed, 175 (7.95%) refused consent and 336 (15.28%) were unavailable. Access to patients was refused in some wards despite ethics approval. Data collection required 2 student nurses approximately 14 min per patient assessment. CONCLUSION: In conducting a large multi-site point prevalence study, critical organisational processes were shown to influence the access to patients. This study demonstrated the impact of variation in Human Research Ethics Committee interpretations of protocols on consenting processes and the importance of communication and leadership at ward level to promote access to patients.