The effects of sedation cessation within the first four hours of intensive care unit admission in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients - a quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Early deep sedation in mechanically ventilated patients during the first 48 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission can be associated with adverse outcomes. We hypothesised that moving the 'daily sedation break' process forwards, might allow earlier titration of sedation to target levels - an 'early sedation cessation' (ESC). METHODS: We commenced a quality improvement project with the primary outcome being to stop sedation completely, within 4 h of ICU admission, in 95% of eligible patients. This was done by small, step-wise tests of change. No ethical approval was required. FINDINGS: Between 1 February 2014 and 31 January 2018, 1787 intubated patients were included. 1052 received an 'ESC' within 4 h ('Yes'), 545 were excluded ('Excluded'), and 190 were inadvertently omitted from 'ESC' ('No'). The primary aim was achieved for the first time after 12 months. Compared to the 'Yes' group, the 'Excluded' group received 38% more propofol in the first 48 h of admission (IRR 1.38 (1.31-1.47), p<0.001), while the 'No' group received 32% more (IRR 1.32 (1.22-1.43), p<0.001). At four hours, 19·6% (12·9-27·9) of the 'Yes' group had attained a target RASS of -1, 0 or 1, compared to 13·6% (8·0-21·0) of those in the 'No' group. This proportion increased to 55·6% (46·1-64·9) at 24 h compared with 44·9% (35·6-54·4) in the 'No' group. INTERPRETATION: Ceasing sedative infusions as soon as possible, is safe and feasible, in both medical and surgical patients, and can be implemented into 'real life' with no additional staffing.

Understanding what matters to patients in critical care: An exploratory evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of person-centred care is a key priority for managers, policy makers, and clinicians in health care. The delivery person-centred care in critical care is challenging because of competing demands. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this quality improvement project was to understand what mattered to patients on a daily basis within the critical care environment. It aimed to understand personal goals and what patients needed to improve their experience. This paper reports on the outputs from this quality improvement project. DESIGN AND DATA ANALYSIS: During each daily ward round, patients were asked "what matters to you today?" Outputs from this were entered into the Daily Goals Sheet, which is utilized for every patient in our critical care unit or in the nursing notes. Using Framework Analysis, prevalent themes were extracted from the patient statements documented. RESULTS: A total of 196 unique patients were included in this analysis alongside 592 patient statements. Four broad themes were generated: medical outcomes and information, the critical care environment, personal care, and family and caregivers. CONCLUSION: The analysis of the data from this quality improvement project has demonstrated that, by asking a simple question within the context of a ward round, care can be enhanced and personalized and long-term outcomes potentially improved. More research is required to understand what the optimal methods are of implementing these requests. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Two main recommendations from practice emerged from this quality improvement project: asking patients "what matters to you?" on a daily basis may help support the humanization of the critical care environment, and visiting and access by families must be discussed with patients to ensure this is appropriate for their needs.

Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment (InS:PIRE). Early evaluation of a complex intervention.

BACKGROUND: Many patients suffer significant physical, social and psychological problems in the months and years following critical care discharge. At present, there is minimal evidence of any effective interventions to support this patient group following hospital discharge. The aim of this project was to understand the impact of a complex intervention for ICU survivors. METHODS: Quality improvement project conducted between September 2014 and June 2016, enrolling 49 selected patients from one ICU in Scotland. To evaluate the impact of this programme outcomes were compared to an existing cohort of patients from the same ICU from 2008-2009. Patients attended a five week peer supported rehabilitation programme. This multidisciplinary programme included pharmacy, physiotherapy, nursing, medical, and psychology input. The primary outcome in this evaluation was the EQ-5D, a validated measure of health-related quality of life. The minimally clinically important difference (MCID) in the EQ-5D is 0.08. We also measured change in self-efficacy over the programme duration. Based on previous research, this study utilised a 2.4 (6%) point change in self-efficacy scores as a MCID. RESULTS: 40 patients (82%) completed follow-up surveys at 12 months. After regression adjustment for those factors known to impact recovery from critical care, there was a 0.07-0.16 point improvement in quality of life for those patients who took part in the intervention compared to historical controls from the same institution, depending on specific regression strategy used. Self-efficacy scores increased by 2.5 points (6.25%) over the duration of the five week programme (p = 0.003), and was sustained at one year post intervention. In the year following ICU, 15 InS:PIRE patients returned to employment or volunteering roles (88%) compared with 11 (46%) in the historical control group (p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This historical control study suggests that a complex intervention may improve quality of life and self-efficacy in survivors of ICU. A larger, multi-centre study is needed to investigate this intervention further.