The introduction of a sound reduction bundle in the intensive care unit and its impact on sound levels and patients.

BACKGROUND: ICU outcomes are continuing to improve. However, this has not been matched by similar improvements of the ICU bedspace environment, which can detrimentally impact on patient outcomes. Excessive sound and noise, especially, has been linked with adverse and potentially preventable patient outcomes and staff errors. There are many sources of sound in the ICU, with alarms from bedside equipment frequently listed as a main source. The number of alarms is increasing in parallel with the introduction of new and more sophisticated technologies to monitor and support patients. However, most alarms are not accurate or critical and are commonly ignored by staff. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a sound reduction bundle on sound levels, number of alarms, and patients' experience and perceived quality of sleep in the ICU. METHODS: This was a pre-post, quasi-experimental study investigating the impact of three study interventions implemented sequentially (staff education, visual warnings when sound levels exceeded the preset levels, and monitor alarm reconfigurations). Effects of staff education were evaluated using pre-education and post-education questionnaires, and the impact on patients was evaluated via self-report questionnaires. A sound-level monitor was used to evaluate changes in sound levels between interventions. Alarm audits were completed before and after alarm reconfiguration. RESULTS: Staff knowledge improved; however, sound levels did not change across interventions. The number of monthly monitor alarms reduced from 600,452 to 115,927. No significant differences were found in patients' subjective rating of their experience and sleep. CONCLUSION: The interventions did not lead to a sound-level reduction; however, there was a large reduction in ICU monitor alarms without any alarm-related adverse events. As the sources of sound are diverse, multidimensional interventions, including staff education, alarm management solutions, and environmental redesign, are likely to be required to achieve a relevant, lasting, and significant sound reduction.

Polyhexamethylene biguanide discs versus unmedicated dressings for prevention of central venous catheter-associated infection in the intensive care unit: A pilot randomised controlled trial to assess protocol safety and feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters are prone to infectious complications, affecting morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Polyhexamethylene biguanide-impregnated discs at the catheter insertion site may prevent local and bloodstream infection; however, efficacy has not been established in a critical care setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to pilot test polyhexamethylene biguanide-impregnated discs compared to standard unmedicated dressings for central venous catheter infection prevention in critically ill patients. METHODS: This was a single-centre pilot randomised controlled trial. Adults admitted to intensive care requiring a central venous catheter for >72 h were eligible. Patients with a current bloodstream infection, concurrent central venous catheter, chlorhexidine or polyhexamethylene biguanide allergy, or sensitive skin were excluded. Patients were randomised to receive standard central venous catheter dressings with/without polyhexamethylene biguanide discs. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was feasibility, defined by patient eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, missing data, and staff satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included: central line-associated infection; primary bloodstream infection; local infection; skin complications; device/dressing dwell time; serious adverse events, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 309 patients screened, 80 participants were recruited with 98% (n = 78) receiving an internal jugular catheter which dwelled for a median of 5 days (interquartile range = 4.0, 6.0). Feasibility criteria were predominantly met (recruitment 88%; retention 100%; protocol fidelity 91%); however, eligibility criteria were not met (32%; most commonly owing to short predicted catheter dwell). Staff acceptability criteria were met, with 83% of staff scoring dressing application and removal ≥7 on a numerical rating scale. There were no central line-associated bloodstream infections and no local infections. Insertion site itch occurred in 4% (control [n = 0], intervention [n = 3]) of participants, while 32% (24/76) reported pain, and 46% (35/76) tenderness. CONCLUSIONS: Polyhexamethylene biguanide discs appear safe for central venous catheter infection prevention. Feasibility of a large efficacy trial was established with some modifications to screening processes. Large, adequately powered randomised controlled trials are needed to test the infection prevention hypotheses.

Screening for delirium in the intensive care unit using eDIS-ICU - A purpose-designed app: A pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Delirium, a common complication of an intensive care unit (ICU) admission, is inconsistently diagnosed by clinicians. Current screening tools require specialist expertise and/or training. Some are time-consuming to administer, and reliability in routine clinical practice is questionable. An innovative app designed to enable efficient and sensitive screening for delirium without specialist training (eDIS-ICU) has recently been described. This pilot study compared the eDIS-ICU against the reference standard expert assessment using DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) criteria and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). METHODS: In this prospective, single-centre pilot study, a convenience sample of 29 ICU patients were recruited at a tertiary referral hospital between November 2018 and August 2019. After obtaining written consent, demographic and clinical data were collected, and the patients were screened for delirium using eDIS-ICU and CAM-ICU by two clinician researchers in random order. The patients were also assessed for presence of delirium independently by an expert clinician using a structured interview to diagnose as per DSM-V criteria. The results of screening and diagnosis were tabulated to allow comparison of screening tools against diagnosis; sensitivity and specificity of the tools were calculated. RESULTS: Seven participants were diagnosed with delirium as per DSM-V criteria. The eDIS-ICU tool correctly identified six of these participants compared with two identified by CAM-ICU. The sensitivity of the eDIS-ICU tool was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 81.5-100.0) compared with 29% (95% CI = 5.1-69.7) for CAM-ICU (p < 0.05), and the specificity was 73% (95% CI = 81.5-100.0) versus 96% (95% CI = 75.1-99.8), respectively. CONCLUSION: The simple and novel eDIS-ICU delirium screening tool was noninferior to the CAM-ICU in detecting delirium as per DSM-V criteria. A definitive validation study is warranted.