Prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections: is it time to add simulation training to the prevention bundle?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of adding simulation-based education to the pre-intervention mandatory hospital efforts aimed at decreasing central venous catheter-related blood stream infections (CRBSI) in intensive care units (ICU). DESIGN: Pre- and post-intervention retrospective observational investigation. SETTING: 24-bed ICU and a 562-bed university-affiliated, urban teaching hospital. PATIENTS: ICU patients July 2004-June 2008 were studied for the development of central venous catheter related blood stream infections (CRBSI). MEASUREMENTS: ICU patients from July 2004-June 2008 were studied for the development of central venous catheter-related blood stream infections (CRBSI). PRE-INTERVENTION: mandatory staff and physician education began in 2004 to reduce CRBSI. The CRBSI-prevention program included online and didactic courses, and a pre- and post-test. Elements in the pre-intervention efforts included hand hygiene, full barrier precautions, use of Chlorhexidine skin preparation, and mask, gown, gloves, and hat protection for operators. A catheter-insertion cart containing all supplies and checklist were was a mandatory element of this program; a nurse was empowered to stop the procedure for non-performance of checklist items. INTERVENTION: As of July 1, 2006, a mandatory simulation-based program for all intern, resident, and fellow physicians was added to teach central venous catheter (CVC) insertion. MEASUREMENTS: Data collected pre- and post-intervention were CRBSI incidence, number of ICU catheter days, mortality, laboratory pathogen results, and costs. MAIN RESULTS: The pre-intervention CRBSI incidence of 6.47/1,000 catheter days was reduced significantly to 2.44/1,000 catheter days post-intervention (58%; P < 0.05), resulting in a $539,902 savings (USD; 47%), and was attributed to shorter ICU and hospital lengths of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Following simulation-based CVC program implementation, CRBSI incidence and costs were significantly reduced for two years post-intervention.

Does every code need a "reader?" improvement of rare event management with a cognitive aid "reader" during a simulated emergency: a pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Prompt treatment is necessary to assure patient survival during crisis. Obstetric cardiac arrest (OCA) and malignant hyperthermia (MH) are rarely occurring crises. Cognitive aids (CAs) consolidate management and assist treatment decisions. We investigated a novel method to encourage resident physician CA use during simulated crises. METHODS: Resident physicians were examined during 31 simulated crises of OCA and MH. CAs reviewed in a prior lecture were placed on resuscitation carts. The confederate emergency management team consisted of two anesthesiologists, two critical care nurses, and a medical student who was assigned to act as the CA "Reader." If the subject failed to manage the crisis, the Reader would prompt the subject to use the CA. If the subject still failed to manage the crisis, the Reader would read the aid aloud to the subject. Steps were scored if completed; physiologic variables were recorded. Subject performance was examined before and after Reader introduction. RESULTS: OCA: No subjects performed all critical steps before introduction of the Reader. Twenty-two percent of Anesthesiology (AN) and 31% of Obstetrics (OB) trainees used the CA. MH: All subjects (AN) correctly diagnosed MH and administered the first dantrolene dose at 7.3 ± 2.5 minutes (PETCO2 72 ± 8 mm Hg, temperature 41.5 °C ± 1.3 °C) but skipped critical treatment steps. Thirty-three percent of subjects used the CA. After Reader introduction, all critical actions for both OCA and MH were completed. CONCLUSIONS: Reader introduction resulted in execution of all critical actions. During the debriefing of the simulated scenarios, subjects acknowledged the benefit of the Reader.

A randomized, open-label study of the safety and tolerability of fospropofol for patients requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Current drugs for induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit have limitations. Fospropofol, a prodrug of propofol, has not been studied as a sedative in the ICU setting. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label pilot study, patients received 1 of 3 regimens with a goal of maintaining a Ramsay Sedation Score of 2 to 5: (1) fospropofol IV infusion with a bolus and increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion/bolus); (2) fospropofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion only); or (3) propofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events. RESULTS: Sixty patients received study drug and were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Because incidence rates for adverse events were similar between fospropofol groups, and because the study was not powered to determine significant differences between treatment groups for safety variables, adverse events for both fospropofol groups were combined. In the fospropofol groups, 28 out of 38 patients (74%) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events in comparison with 14 out of 22 patients (64%) in the propofol group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with fospropofol were procedural pain (21.1%) and nausea (13.2%). Two patients (1 each in the fospropofol infusion/bolus and the propofol groups) experienced hypotension during the study as a potential sedation-related adverse event. Mean plasma formate levels were not significantly different among groups. Patients in all 3 treatment groups maintained Ramsay Sedation Scores of 2 to 5 for >90% of the time they were sedated. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that fospropofol, administered in either an infusion/bolus or infusion-only regimen, is tolerable and effective for short-term induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.

Pilot evaluation of a prototype critical care blood glucose monitor in normal volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Availability of a highly accurate in-hospital automated blood glucose (BG) monitor could facilitate implementation of intensive insulin therapy protocols through effective titration of insulin therapy, improved BG control, and avoidance of hypoglycemia. We evaluated a functional prototype BG monitor designed to perform frequent automated blood sampling for glucose monitoring. METHODS: Sixteen healthy adult volunteer subjects had intravenous catheter insertions in a forearm or hand vein and were studied for 8 hours. The prototype monitor consisted of an autosampling unit with a precise computer-controlled reversible syringe pump and a glucose analytical section. BG was referenced against a Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) laboratory analyzer. Sampling errors for automated blood draws were assessed by calculating the percent of failed draws, and BG data were analyzed using the Bland and Altman technique. RESULTS: Out of 498 total sample draws, unsuccessful draws were categorized as follow: 11 (2.2%) were due to autosampler technical problems, 21 (4.2%) were due to catheter-related failures, and 37 (7.4%) were BG meter errors confirmed by a glucometer-generated error code. Blood draw difficulties or failures related to the catheter site (e.g., catheter occlusion or vein collapse) occurred in 6/15 (40%) subjects. Mean BG bias versus YSI was 0.20 +/- 12.6 mg/dl, and mean absolute relative difference was 10.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Automated phlebotomy can be performed in healthy subjects using this prototype BG monitor. The BG measurement technology had suboptimal accuracy based on a YSI reference. A more accurate BG point-of-care testing meter and strip technology have been incorporated into the future version of this monitor. Development of such a monitor could alleviate the burden of frequent BG testing and reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in patients on insulin therapy.

Safety of sodium phosphate tablets in patients receiving propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy.

GOALS: To compare the incidence of peri-procedure adverse events in patients undergoing colon cleansing with sodium phosphate tablets or polyethylene glycol solution prior to colonoscopy with propofol-based sedation. BACKGROUND: Propofol is a rapidly acting hypnotic sedative general anesthetic agent increasingly being used for colonoscopy. Although traditionally patients fast overnight prior to a general anesthetic, a new Food and Drug Administration-approved sodium phosphate tablet purgative requires ingestion of 20 tablets with 56 ounces of clear liquid 3 to 5 hours prior to colonoscopy. STUDY: We retrospectively reviewed 97 outpatients who received propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy. This was a subset of a randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter trial comparing sodium phosphate tablets with polyethylene glycol. Study data and anesthesia records were reviewed for peri-procedure hemodynamic, cardiac, and pulmonary adverse events as well as the need for hospital admission. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups when analyzed for the development of tachycardia, decrease in mean arterial pressure below 50 mmHg, or a reduction in the mean arterial pressure greater than 30% from the pre-procedure value. No patients in either group experienced hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90%), excessive regurgitation, pneumonia, or hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-procedure adverse events occurred rarely and with no increased frequency in patients using the sodium phosphate tablet purgative and receiving propofol-based sedation. The sodium phosphate tablet purgative is safe for patients receiving propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy.