Preparation for airway management in Australia and New Zealand ICUs during the COVID -19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: This paper aimed to describe the airway practices of intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia and New Zealand specific to patients presenting with COVID-19 and to inform whether consistent clinical practice was achieved. Specific clinical airway guidelines were endorsed in March 2020 by the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) and College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Prospective, structured questionnaire for all ICU directors in Australia and New Zealand was completed by 69 ICU directors after email invitation from ANZICS. The online questionnaire was accessible for three weeks during September 2020 and analysed by cloud-based software. Basic ICU demographics (private or public, metropolitan or rural) and location, purchasing, airway management practices, guideline uptake, checklist and cognitive aid use and staff training relevant to airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic were the main outcome measures. The 69 ICU directors reported significant simulation-based inter-professional airway training of staff (97%), and use of video laryngoscopy (94%), intubation checklists (94%), cognitive aids (83%) and PPE "spotters" (89%) during the airway management of patients with COVID-19. Tracheal intubation was almost always performed by a Specialist (97% of ICUs), who was more likely to be an intensivist than an anaesthetist (61% vs 36%). There was a more frequent adoption of specific airway guidelines for the management of COVID-19 patients in public ICUs (94% vs 71%) and reliance on specialist intensivists to perform intubations in private ICUs (92% vs 53%). CONCLUSION: There was a high uptake of a standardised approach to airway management in COVID-19 patients in ICUs in Australia and New Zealand, likely due to endorsement of national guidelines.

Evaluating the influence of data collector training for predictive risk of death models: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Severity-of-illness scoring systems are widely used for quality assurance and research. Although validated by trained data collectors, there is little data on the accuracy of real-world data collection practices. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of formal data collection training on the accuracy of scoring system data in intensive care units (ICUs). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Quality assurance audit conducted using survey methodology principles. Between June and December 2018, an electronic document with details of three fictitious ICU patients was emailed to staff from 19 Australian ICUs who voluntarily submitted data on a web-based data entry form. Their entries were used to generate severity-of-illness scores and risks of death (RoDs) for four scoring systems. The primary outcome was the variation of severity-of-illness scores and RoDs from a reference standard. RESULTS: 50/83 staff (60.3%) submitted data. Using Bayesian multilevel analysis, severity-of-illness scores and RoDs were found to be significantly higher for untrained staff. The mean (95% high-density interval) overestimation in RoD due to training effect for patients 1, 2 and 3, respectively, were 0.24 (0.16, 0.31), 0.19 (0.09, 0.29) and 0.24 (0.1, 0.38) respectively (Bayesian factor >300, decisive evidence). Both groups (trained and untrained) had wide coefficients of variation up to 38.1%, indicating wide variability. Untrained staff made more errors in interpreting scoring system definitions. INTERPRETATION: In a fictitious patient dataset, data collection staff without formal training significantly overestimated the severity-of-illness scores and RoDs compared with trained staff. Both groups exhibited wide variability. Strategies to improve practice may include providing adequate training for all data collection staff, refresher training for previously trained staff and auditing the raw data submitted by individual ICUs. The results of this simulated study need revalidation on real patients.

Consensus statement: Safe Airway Society principles of airway management and tracheal intubation specific to the COVID-19 adult patient group.

INTRODUCTION: This statement was planned on 11 March 2020 to provide clinical guidance and aid staff preparation for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Australia and New Zealand. It has been widely endorsed by relevant specialty colleges and societies. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Generic guidelines exist for the intubation of different patient groups, as do resources to facilitate airway rescue and transition to the "can't intubate, can't oxygenate" scenario. They should be followed where they do not contradict our specific recommendations for the COVID-19 patient group. Consideration should be given to using a checklist that has been specifically modified for the COVID-19 patient group. Early intubation should be considered to prevent the additional risk to staff of emergency intubation and to avoid prolonged use of high flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation. Significant institutional preparation is required to optimise staff and patient safety in preparing for the airway management of the COVID-19 patient group. The principles for airway management should be the same for all patients with COVID-19 (asymptomatic, mild or critically unwell). Safe, simple, familiar, reliable and robust practices should be adopted for all episodes of airway management for patients with COVID-19. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: Airway clinicians in Australia and New Zealand should now already be involved in regular intensive training for the airway management of the COVID-19 patient group. This training should focus on the principles of early intervention, meticulous planning, vigilant infection control, efficient processes, clear communication and standardised practice.

Reducing inappropriate arterial blood gas testing in a level III intensive care unit: a before-and-after observational study.

Background: Arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis is the most frequently performed test in intensive care units (ICUs), often without a specific clinical indication. This is costly and contributes to iatrogenic anaemia. Objectives: To reduce the number of ABG tests performed and the proportion that are inappropriate. Design, setting and participants: The indications for ABG analysis were surveyed at a 58-bed level III ICU during fortnightly periods before and after a multifaceted educational intervention which included the introduction of a clinical guideline. The number of ABG tests performed during the period July-December 2017 was compared with that for the period July-December 2018. Tests were predefined as inappropriate if performed at regular time intervals, at change of shift, concurrently with other blood tests or after a treatment was ceased on a stable patient or after ventilatory support or oxygen delivery was decreased in an otherwise stable patient. The study was enrolled on the Quality Improvement Projects Register and ethics approval was waived by the local ethics committee. Results: There was a 31.3% bed-day adjusted decrease in number of ABG tests performed (33 005 v 22 408; P < 0.001), representing an annual saving of A$770 000 and 100 litres of blood. The proportion of inappropriate ABG tests decreased by 47.3% (54.2% v 28.6%; P < 0.001) and the number of inappropriate ABG tests per bed-day decreased by 71% (2.8 v 0.8; P < 0.001). Patient outcomes before and after the intervention did not differ (standardised mortality ratio, 0.65 v 0.63; P = 0.22). Conclusion: Staff education and implementation of a clinical guideline resulted in substantial decreases in the number of ABG tests performed and the proportion of inappropriate ABG tests.

Simulation-Based Communication Skills Training for Experienced Clinicians to Improve Family Conversations About Organ and Tissue Donation.

INTRODUCTION: The approach, communication skills, and confidence of clinicians responsible for raising deceased organ donation may influence families' donation decisions. The aim of this study was to increase the preparedness and confidence of intensive care clinicians allocated to work in a "designated requester" role. DESIGN: We conducted a posttest evaluation of an innovative simulation-based training program. Simulation-based training enabled clinicians to rehearse the "balanced approach" to family donation conversations (FDCs) in the designated requester role. Professional actors played family members in simulated clinical settings using authentic scenarios, with video-assisted reflective debriefing. Participants completed an evaluation after the workshop. Simple descriptive statistical analysis and content analysis were performed. RESULTS: Between January 2013 and July 2015, 25 workshops were undertaken with 86 participants; 82 (95.3%) returned evaluations. Respondents were registered practicing clinicians; over half (44/82; 53.7%) were intensivists. Most attended a single workshop. Evaluations were overwhelmingly positive with the majority rating workshops as outstanding (64/80; 80%). Scenario fidelity, competence of the actors, opportunity to practice and receive feedback on performance, and feedback from actors, both in and out of character, were particularly valued. Most (76/78; 97.4%) reported feeling more confident about their designated requester role. DISCUSSION: Simulation-based communication training for the designated requester role in FDCs increased the knowledge and confidence of clinicians to raise the topic of donation.

Top 10 (+1) tips to get started with in situ simulation in emergency and critical care departments.

Simulation is increasingly valued as a teaching and learning tool in emergency medicine. Bringing simulation into the workplace to train in situ offers a unique and effective training opportunity for the emergency department (ED) multiprofessional workforce. Integrating simulation in a busy department is difficult but can be done. In this article, we outline 10 tips to help make it happen.

Are potential organ donors missed on general wards? A 6-month audit of hospital deaths.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether potential organ donors are being missed on general wards by the DonateLife Audit, which concentrates on patients dying in emergency departments and intensive care units. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: Six-month (1 July to 31 December 2012) retrospective audit of patient deaths in a 700-bed metropolitan Australian tertiary referral and teaching hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Potential organ donor suitability as assessed by a panel of organ donation specialists. RESULTS: In total, 427 patients died, including nine neonates (2.1%) who were not further assessed and 175 patients (41.0%) who were excluded on the basis of age contraindicating organ donation (≥ 80 years). Seventy-eight (18.3%) were excluded on the basis of active cancer or palliative care for cancer and 143 (33.5%) were deemed otherwise not medically suitable. Twelve (2.8%) had been referred to the DonateLife team for consideration for organ donation. Ten (2.3%) were submitted for panel review, and of these only three were considered to have "potential to develop brain death within 24 hours". These patients would have required mechanical ventilation if potential organ donation were to be realised. One additional potential candidate for donation after circulatory death was identified in the intensive care unit. CONCLUSION: We identified very few potential organ donors among patients who died outside the emergency department and intensive care unit. For these patients to have progressed to organ donation, medical interventions not in keeping with standard Australian practice would have been required. The DonateLife Audit appears to be a robust tool for identifying realistic potential organ donors.