Organizational factors associated with adherence to low tidal volume ventilation: a secondary analysis of the CHECKLIST-ICU database.

BACKGROUND: Survival benefit from low tidal volume (VT) ventilation (LTVV) has been demonstrated for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and patients not having ARDS could also benefit from this strategy. Organizational factors may play a role on adherence to LTVV. The present study aimed to identify organizational factors with an independent association with adherence to LTVV. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the database of a multicenter two-phase study (prospective cohort followed by a cluster-randomized trial) performed in 118 Brazilian intensive care units. Patients under mechanical ventilation at day 2 were included. LTVV was defined as a VT ≤ 8 ml/kg PBW on the second day of ventilation. Data on the type and number of beds of the hospital, teaching status, nursing, respiratory therapists and physician staffing, use of structured checklist, and presence of protocols were tested. A multivariable mixed-effect model was used to assess the association between organizational factors and adherence to LTVV. RESULTS: The study included 5719 patients; 3340 (58%) patients received LTVV. A greater number of hospital beds (absolute difference 7.43% [95% confidence interval 0.61-14.24%]; p = 0.038), use of structured checklist during multidisciplinary rounds (5.10% [0.55-9.81%]; p = 0.030), and presence of at least one nurse per 10 patients during all shifts (17.24% [0.85-33.60%]; p = 0.045) were the only three factors that had an independent association with adherence to LTVV. CONCLUSIONS: Number of hospital beds, use of a structured checklist during multidisciplinary rounds, and nurse staffing are organizational factors associated with adherence to LTVV. These findings shed light on organizational factors that may improve ventilation in critically ill patients.

Machine learning to predict 30-day quality-adjusted survival in critically ill patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: To develop and compare the predictive performance of machine-learning algorithms to estimate the risk of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lower than or equal to 30 days (30-day QALY). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six machine-learning algorithms were applied to predict 30-day QALY for 777 patients admitted in a prospective cohort study conducted in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) of two public Brazilian hospitals specialized in cancer care. The predictors were 37 characteristics collected at ICU admission. Discrimination was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Sensitivity, 1-specificity, true/false positive and negative cases were measured for different estimated probability cutoff points (30%, 20% and 10%). Calibration was evaluated with GiViTI calibration belt and test. RESULTS: Except for basic decision trees, the adjusted predictive models were nearly equivalent, presenting good results for discrimination (AUROC curves over 0.80). Artificial neural networks and gradient boosted trees achieved the overall best calibration, implying an accurately predicted probability for 30-day QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Except for basic decision trees, predictive models derived from different machine-learning algorithms discriminated the QALY risk at 30 days well. Regarding calibration, artificial neural network model presented the best ability to estimate 30-day QALY in critically ill oncologic patients admitted to ICUs.

Effect of a Quality Improvement Intervention on Adherence to Therapies for Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Translating evidence into clinical practice in the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and transient ischemic attack (TIA) is challenging, especially in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention on adherence to evidence-based therapies for care of patients with AIS and TIA. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This 2-arm cluster-randomized clinical trial assessed 45 hospitals and 2336 patients with AIS and TIA for eligibility before randomization. Eligible hospitals were able to provide care for patients with AIS and TIA in Brazil, Argentina, and Peru. Recruitment started September 12, 2016, and ended February 26, 2018; follow-up ended June 29, 2018. Data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle. INTERVENTIONS: The multifaceted quality improvement intervention included case management, reminders, a roadmap and checklist for the therapeutic plan, educational materials, and periodic audit and feedback reports to each intervention cluster. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite adherence score for AIS and TIA performance measures. Secondary outcomes included an all-or-none composite end point of performance measures, the individual process measure components of the composite end points, and clinical outcomes at 90 days after admission (stroke recurrence, death, and disability measured by the modified Rankin scale). RESULTS: A total of 36 hospitals and 1624 patients underwent randomization. Nineteen hospitals were randomized to the quality improvement intervention and 17 to routine care. The overall mean (SD) age of patients enrolled in the study was 69.4 (13.5) years, and 913 (56.2%) were men. Overall mean (SD) composite adherence score for the 10 performance measures in the intervention group hospitals compared with control group hospitals was 85.3% (20.1%) vs 77.8% (18.4%) (mean difference, 4.2%; 95% CI, -3.8% to 12.2%). As a secondary end point, 402 of 817 patients (49.2%) at intervention hospitals received all the therapies that they were eligible for vs 203 of 807 (25.2%) in the control hospitals (odds ratio, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.22-5.53; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A multifaceted quality improvement intervention did not result in a significant increase in composite adherence score for evidence-based therapies in patients with AIS or TIA. However, when using an all-or-none approach, the intervention resulted in improved adherence to evidence-based therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02223273.

An international cluster-randomized quality improvement trial to increase the adherence to evidence-based therapies for acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack patients: Rationale and design of the BRIDGE STROKE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Translating evidence into clinical practice in the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and transient ischemic attack (TIA) is challenging especially in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the effect of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention on adherence to evidence-based therapies for AIS and TIA patients care. DESIGN: We designed a pragmatic, 2-arm cluster-randomized trial involving 36 clusters and 1624 patients from Brazil, Argentina, and Peru. Hospitals are randomized to receive a multifaceted quality improvement intervention (intervention group) or to routine care (control group). The BRIDGE Stroke multifaceted quality improvement intervention includes case management, reminders, health care providers' educational materials (including treatment algorithms), interactive workshops, and audit and feedback reports. Primary outcome is a composite adherence score to AIS and TIA performance measures. Secondary outcomes include an "all or none" composite end point to performance measures, the individual components of the composite end points, and clinical outcomes at 90 days following admission (stroke recurrence, death, and disability measured by the modified Rankin scale). SUMMARY: The BRIDGE Stroke Trial is an international pragmatic evaluation of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention. If effective, this intervention could be potentially extended widely to improve the quality of care and outcomes of patients with AIS or TIA.

Effect of a Quality Improvement Intervention With Daily Round Checklists, Goal Setting, and Clinician Prompting on Mortality of Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The effectiveness of checklists, daily goal assessments, and clinician prompts as quality improvement interventions in intensive care units (ICUs) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention reduces the mortality of critically ill adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study had 2 phases. Phase 1 was an observational study to assess baseline data on work climate, care processes, and clinical outcomes, conducted between August 2013 and March 2014 in 118 Brazilian ICUs. Phase 2 was a cluster randomized trial conducted between April and November 2014 with the same ICUs. The first 60 admissions of longer than 48 hours per ICU were enrolled in each phase. INTERVENTIONS: Intensive care units were randomized to a quality improvement intervention, including a daily checklist and goal setting during multidisciplinary rounds with follow-up clinician prompting for 11 care processes, or to routine care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality truncated at 60 days (primary outcome) was analyzed using a random-effects logistic regression model, adjusted for patients' severity and the ICU's baseline standardized mortality ratio. Exploratory secondary outcomes included adherence to care processes, safety climate, and clinical events. RESULTS: A total of 6877 patients (mean age, 59.7 years; 3218 [46.8%] women) were enrolled in the baseline (observational) phase and 6761 (mean age, 59.6 years; 3098 [45.8%] women) in the randomized phase, with 3327 patients enrolled in ICUs (n = 59) assigned to the intervention group and 3434 patients in ICUs (n = 59) assigned to routine care. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the intervention group and the usual care group, with 1096 deaths (32.9%) and 1196 deaths (34.8%), respectively (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82-1.26; P = .88). Among 20 prespecified secondary outcomes not adjusted for multiple comparisons, 6 were significantly improved in the intervention group (use of low tidal volumes, avoidance of heavy sedation, use of central venous catheters, use of urinary catheters, perception of team work, and perception of patient safety climate), whereas there were no significant differences between the intervention group and the control group for 14 outcomes (ICU mortality, central line-associated bloodstream infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, urinary tract infection, mean ventilator-free days, mean ICU length of stay, mean hospital length of stay, bed elevation to ≥30°, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, diet administration, job satisfaction, stress reduction, perception of management, and perception of working conditions). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill patients treated in ICUs in Brazil, implementation of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention with daily checklists, goal setting, and clinician prompting did not reduce in-hospital mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01785966.

Long-Term Survival, Quality of Life, and Quality-Adjusted Survival in Critically Ill Patients With Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term survival, health-related quality of life, and quality-adjusted life years of cancer patients admitted to ICUs. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Two cancer specialized ICUs in Brazil. PATIENTS: A total of 792 participants. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The health-related quality of life before ICU admission; at 15 days; and at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months was assessed with the EQ-5D-3L. In addition, the vital status was assessed at 24 months. The mean age of the subjects was 61.6 ± 14.3 years, 42.5% were female subjects and half were admitted after elective surgery. The mean Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 was 47.4 ± 15.6. Survival at 12 and 18 months was 42.4% and 38.1%, respectively. The mean EQ-5D-3L utility measure before admission to the ICU was 0.47 ± 0.43, at 15 days it was 0.41 ± 0.44, at 90 days 0.56 ± 0.42, at 6 months 0.60 ± 0.41, at 12 months 0.67 ± 0.35, and at 18 months 0.67 ± 0.35. The probabilities for attaining 12 and 18 months of quality-adjusted survival were 30.1% and 19.1%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in survival time and quality-adjusted life years according to all assessed baseline characteristics (ICU admission after elective surgery, emergency surgery, or medical admission; Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3; cancer extension; cancer status; previous surgery; previous chemotherapy; previous radiotherapy; performance status; and previous health-related quality of life). Only the previous health-related quality of life and performance status were associated with the health-related quality of life during the 18-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival, health-related quality of life, and quality-adjusted life year expectancy of cancer patients admitted to the ICU are limited. Nevertheless, these clinical outcomes exhibit wide variability among patients and are associated with simple characteristics present at the time of ICU admission, which may help healthcare professionals estimate patients' prognoses.

A cluster randomized trial of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention in Brazilian intensive care units: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The uptake of evidence-based therapies in the intensive care environment is suboptimal, particularly in limited-resource countries. Checklists, daily goal assessments, and clinician prompts may improve compliance with best practice processes of care and, in turn, improve clinical outcomes. However, the available evidence on the effectiveness of checklists is unreliable and inconclusive, and the mechanisms are poorly understood. We aim to evaluate whether the use of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including the use of a checklist and the definition of daily care goals during multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompts, can improve the in-hospital mortality of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Our secondary objectives are to assess the effects of the study intervention on specific processes of care, clinical outcomes, and the safety culture and to determine which factors (the processes of care and/or safety culture) mediate the effect of the study intervention on mortality. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a cluster randomized trial involving 118 ICUs in Brazil conducted in two phases. In the observational preparatory phase, we collect baseline data on processes of care and clinical outcomes from 60 consecutive patients with lengths of ICU stay longer than 48 h and apply the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) to 75% or more of the health care staff in each ICU. In the randomized phase, we assign ICUs to the experimental or control arm and repeat data collection. Experimental arm ICUs receive the multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including a checklist and definition of daily care goals during daily multidisciplinary rounds, clinician prompting, and feedback on rates of adherence to selected care processes. Control arm ICUs maintain usual care. The primary outcome is in-hospital mortality, truncated at 60 days. Secondary outcomes include the rates of adherence to appropriate care processes, rates of other clinical outcomes, and scores on the SAQ domains. Analysis follows the intention-to-treat principle, and the primary outcome is analyzed using mixed effects logistic regression. DISCUSSION: This is a large scale, pragmatic cluster-randomized trial evaluating whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including checklists applied during the multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompting, can improve the adoption of proven therapies and decrease the mortality of critically ill patients. If this study finds that the intervention reduces mortality, it may be widely adopted in intensive care units, even those in limited-resource settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01785966.

A cluster-randomised trial of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention in Brazilian intensive care units (Checklist-ICU trial): statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The Checklist During Multidisciplinary Visits for Reduction of Mortality in Intensive Care Units (Checklist- ICU) trial is a pragmatic, two-arm, cluster-randomised trial involving 118 intensive care units in Brazil, with the primary objective of determining if a multifaceted qualityimprovement intervention with a daily checklist, definition of daily care goals during multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompts can reduce inhospital mortality. OBJECTIVE: To describe our trial statistical analysis plan (SAP). METHODS: This is an ongoing trial conducted in two phases. In the preparatory observational phase, we collect three sets of baseline data: ICU characteristics; patient characteristics, processes of care and outcomes; and completed safety attitudes questionnaires (SAQs). In the randomised phase, ICUs are assigned to the experimental or control arms and we collect patient data and repeat the SAQ. RESULTS: Our SAP includes the prespecified model for the primary and secondary outcome analyses, which account for the cluster-randomised design and availability of baseline data. We also detail the multiple mediation models that we will use to assess our secondary hypothesis (that the effect of the intervention on inhospital mortality is mediated not only through care processes targeted by the checklist, but also through changes in safety culture). We describe our approach to sensitivity and subgroup analyses and missing data. CONCLUSION: We report our SAP before closing our study database and starting analysis. We anticipate that this should prevent analysis bias and enhance the utility of results.

Effects of alveolar recruitment maneuvers on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of alveolar recruitment maneuvers (ARMs) on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: We conducted a search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science (from inception to July 2014) databases for all (i.e. no language restriction) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of ARMs versus no ARMs in adults with ARDS. Four teams of two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the studies identified during the search and appraised the risk of bias and extracted data from those which were assessed as meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to establish monitoring boundaries to limit global type I error due to repetitive testing for our primary outcome (in-hospital mortality). The GRADE system was used to rate the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Our database search identified ten RCTs (1,594 patients, 612 events) which satisfied the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis assessing the effect of ARMs on in-hospital mortality showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.84 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.95; I(2) = 0 %], although the quality of evidence was considered to be low due to the risk of bias in the included trials and the indirectness of the evidence--that is, ARMs were usually conducted together with other ventilatory interventions which may affect the outcome of interest. There were no differences in the rates of barotrauma (RR 1.11; 95 % CI 0.78-1.57; I(2) = 0 %) or need for rescue therapies (RR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.41-1.40; I(2) = 56 %). Most trials found no difference between groups in terms of duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. The TSA showed that the available evidence for the effect of ARMs on in-hospital mortality is precise in the case of a type I error of 5 %, but it is not precise with a type I error of 1 %. CONCLUSIONS: Although ARMs may decrease the mortality of patients with ARDS without increasing the risk for major adverse events, current evidence is not definitive. Large-scale ongoing trials addressing this question may provide data better applicable to clinical practice.