Opioid Administration Practice Patterns in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure Who Undergo Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

IMPORTANCE: The opioid crisis is impacting people across the country and deserves attention to be able to curb the rise in opioid-related deaths. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate practice patterns in opioid infusion administration and dosing for patients with acute respiratory failure receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients from 21 hospitals in Kaiser Permanente Northern California and 96 hospitals in Philips electronic ICU Research Institute. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We assessed whether patients received opioid infusion and the dose of said opioid infusion. RESULTS: We identified patients with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure who were initiated on invasive mechanical ventilation. From each patient, we determined if opioid infusions were administered and, among those who received an opioid infusion, the median daily dose of fentanyl infusion. We used hierarchical regression models to quantify variation in opioid infusion use and the median daily dose of fentanyl equivalents across hospitals. We included 13,140 patients in the KPNC cohort and 52,033 patients in the eRI cohort. A total of 7,023 (53.4%) and 16,311 (31.1%) patients received an opioid infusion in the first 21 days of mechanical ventilation in the KPNC and eRI cohorts, respectively. After accounting for patient- and hospital-level fixed effects, the hospital that a patient was admitted to explained 7% (95% CI, 3-11%) and 39% (95% CI, 28-49%) of the variation in opioid infusion use in the KPNC and eRI cohorts, respectively. Among patients who received an opioid infusion, the median daily fentanyl equivalent dose was 692 µg (interquartile range [IQR], 129-1341 µg) in the KPNC cohort and 200 µg (IQR, 0-1050 µg) in the eRI cohort. Hospital explained 4% (95% CI, 1-7%) and 20% (95% CI, 15-26%) of the variation in median daily fentanyl equivalent dose in the KPNC and eRI cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the context of efforts to limit healthcare-associated opioid exposure, our findings highlight the considerable opioid exposure that accompanies mechanical ventilation and suggest potential under and over-treatment with analgesia. Our results facilitate benchmarking of hospitals' analgesia practices against risk-adjusted averages and can be used to inform usual care control arms of analgesia and sedation clinical trials.

"For the first time I am seriously fighting burnout": clinician experiences with a challenging electronic health record transition.

Objectives: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is transitioning from its legacy electronic health record (EHR) to a new commercial EHR in a nationwide, rolling-wave transition. We evaluated clinician and staff experiences to identify strategies to improve future EHR rollouts. Materials and Methods: We completed a convergent mixed-methods formative evaluation collecting survey and interview data to measure and describe clinician and staff experiences. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics; interview transcripts were coded using a combination of a priori and emergent codes followed by qualitative content analysis. Qualitative and quantitative findings were compared to provide a more comprehensive understanding of participant experience. Employees of specialty and primary care teams at the first nationwide EHR transition site agreed to participate in our study. We distributed surveys at 1-month pre-transition, 2 months post-transition, and 10 months post-transition to each of the 68 identified team members and completed longitudinal interviews with 30 of these individuals totaling 122 semi-structured interviews. Results: Interview participants reported profoundly disruptive experiences during the EHR transition that persisted at 1-year post implementation. Survey responses indicated training difficulties throughout the transition, and sharp declines (P ≤ .05) between pre- and post-go-live measures of EHR usability and increase in EHR burden that were perceived to be due in part to system inefficiencies, discordant positive messaging that initially ignored user challenges, and inadequate support for and attention to ongoing EHR issues. Participants described persistent high levels of stress associated with these disruptions. Discussion: Our findings highlight strategies to improve employee experiences during EHR transitions: (1) working with Oracle Cerner to resolve known issues and improve usability; (2) role-based training with opportunities for self-directed learning; (3) peer-led support systems and timely feedback on issues; (4) messaging that responds to challenges and successes; and (5) continuous efforts to support staff with issues and address clinician and staff stress and burnout. Conclusion: Our findings provide relevant strategies to navigate future EHR transitions while supporting clinical teams.

Variation in Sedative and Analgesic Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Providing analgesia and sedation is an essential component of caring for many mechanically ventilated patients. The selection of analgesic and sedative medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact of these sedation practices on patient outcomes, remain incompletely characterized. RESEARCH QUESTION: What were the hospital patterns of analgesic and sedative use for patients with COVID-19 who received mechanical ventilation (MV), and what differences in clinical patient outcomes were observed across prevailing sedation practices? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of hospitalized adults who received MV for COVID-19 from February 2020 through April 2021 within the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) COVID-19 Registry. To describe common sedation practices, we used hierarchical clustering to group hospitals based on the percentage of patients who received various analgesic and sedative medications. We then used multivariable regression models to evaluate the association between hospital analgesia and sedation cluster and duration of MV (with a placement of death [POD] approach to account for competing risks). RESULTS: We identified 1,313 adults across 35 hospitals admitted with COVID-19 who received MV. Two clusters of analgesia and sedation practices were identified. Cluster 1 hospitals generally administered opioids and propofol with occasional use of additional sedatives (eg, benzodiazepines, alpha-agonists, and ketamine); cluster 2 hospitals predominantly used opioids and benzodiazepines without other sedatives. As compared with patients in cluster 2, patients admitted to cluster 1 hospitals underwent a shorter adjusted median duration of MV with POD (ß-estimate, -5.9; 95% CI, -11.2 to -0.6; P = .03). INTERPRETATION: Patients who received MV for COVID-19 in hospitals that prioritized opioids and propofol for analgesia and sedation experienced shorter adjusted median duration of MV with POD as compared with patients who received MV in hospitals that primarily used opioids and benzodiazepines.

"Like One Long Battle:" Employee Perspectives of the Simultaneous Impact of COVID-19 and an Electronic Health Record Transition.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations regularly manage external stressors that threaten patient care, but experiences handling concurrent stressors are not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the experience of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinicians and staff navigating simultaneous organizational stressors-an electronic health record (EHR) transition and the COVID-19 pandemic-and identify potential strategies to optimize management of co-occurring stressors. DESIGN: Qualitative case study describing employee experiences at VA's initial EHR transition site. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians, nurses, allied health professionals, and local leaders at VA's initial EHR transition site. APPROACH: We collected longitudinal qualitative interview data between July 2020 and November 2021 once before and 2-4 times after the date on which the health system transitioned; this timing corresponded with local surges of COVID-19 cases. Interviewers conducted coding and analysis of interview transcripts. For this study, we focused on quotes related to COVID-19 and performed content analysis to describe recurring themes describing the simultaneous impact of COVID-19 and an EHR transition. KEY RESULTS: We identified five themes related to participants' experiences: (1) efforts to mitigate COVID-19 transmission led to insufficient access to EHR training and support, (2) clinical practice changes in response to the pandemic impacted EHR workflows in unexpected ways, (3) lack of clear communication and inconsistent enforcement of COVID-19 policies intensified pre-existing frustrations with the EHR, (4) managing concurrent organizational stressors increased work dissatisfaction and feelings of burnout, and (5) participants had limited bandwidth to manage competing demands that arose from concurrent organizational stressors. CONCLUSION: The expected challenges of an EHR transition were compounded by co-occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had negative impacts on clinician experience and patient care. During simultaneous organizational stressors, health care facilities should be prepared to address the complex interplay of two stressors on employee experience.

Smartphone-Guided Self-prone Positioning vs Usual Care in Nonintubated Hospital Ward Patients With COVID-19: A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective, and easily implementable treatments that reduce the progression of respiratory failure in COVID-19 are urgently needed. Despite the increased adoption of prone positioning during the pandemic, the effectiveness of this technique on progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions compared with usual care in reducing progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 (APPEX-19) is a multicenter randomized clinical trial that randomized nonintubated adults with COVID-19 on < 6 L/min of supplemental oxygen to receive a smartphone-guided self-prone positioning intervention or usual care. The primary outcome was the composite of respiratory deterioration (an increase in supplemental oxygen requirement) or ICU transfer. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, the posterior probability of superiority within each treatment arm (superiority threshold 95%) was calculated. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for slow enrollment. A total of 293 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (159 self-prone positioning intervention and 134 usual care). Among participants who self-reported body positioning (n = 139 [70 intervention, 69 usual care]), 71.4% in the intervention arm and 59.4% in the usual care arm attempted prone positioning. Thirty-one participants (posterior mean, 24.7%; 95% credible interval, 18.6-31.4) receiving usual care and 32 participants (posterior mean, 22.1%; 95% credible interval, 16.6-28.1) receiving the self-prone positioning intervention experienced the primary outcome; the posterior probability of superiority for the self-prone positioning intervention was 72.1%, less than the 95% threshold for superiority. Adverse events occurred in 26.9% of participants in the usual care arm and in 11.9% of participants in the intervention arm. INTERPRETATION: Among nonintubated patients with COVID-19, smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions did not promote strong adherence to prone positioning. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04344587; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Association between Troponin I Levels during Sepsis and Postsepsis Cardiovascular Complications.

Rationale: Sepsis commonly results in elevated serum troponin levels and increased risk for postsepsis cardiovascular complications; however, the association between troponin levels during sepsis and cardiovascular complications after sepsis is unclear.Objectives: To evaluate the association between serum troponin levels during sepsis and 1 year after sepsis cardiovascular events.Methods: We analyzed adults aged ⩾40 years without preexisting cardiovascular disease within 5 years, admitted with sepsis across 21 hospitals from 2011 to 2017. Peak serum troponin I levels during sepsis were grouped as normal (⩽0.04 ng/ml) or tertiles of abnormal (>0.04 to ⩽0.09 ng/ml, >0.09 to ⩽0.42 ng/ml, or >0.42 ng/ml). Multivariable adjusted cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models with death as a competing risk were used to assess associations between peak troponin I levels and a composite cardiovascular outcome (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure) in the year following sepsis. Models were adjusted for presepsis and intrasepsis factors considered potential confounders.Measurements and Main Results: Among 14,046 eligible adults with troponin I measured, 2,012 (14.3%) experienced the composite cardiovascular outcome, including 832 (10.9%) patients with normal troponin levels, as compared with 370 (17.3%), 376 (17.6%), and 434 (20.3%) patients within each sequential abnormal troponin tertile, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients within the elevated troponin tertiles had increased risks of adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]troponin0.04-0.09 = 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-1.55; aHRtroponin0.09-0.42 = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.27-1.63; and aHRtroponin>0.42 = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.56-2.00).Conclusions: Among patients without preexisting cardiovascular disease, troponin elevation during sepsis identified patients at increased risk for postsepsis cardiovascular complications. Strategies to mitigate cardiovascular complications among this high-risk subset of patients are warranted.

Rationale and Design of the Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 Study Protocol: A Clinical Trial.

The unprecedented public health burdens of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have intensified the urgency of identifying effective, low-cost treatments that limit the need for advanced life support measures and improve clinical outcomes. However, personal protective equipment and staffing shortages, disease virulence, and infectivity have created significant barriers to traditional clinical trial practices. We present the novel design of a pragmatic, adaptive, multicenter, international, prospective randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of awake prone positioning in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 (APPEX-19 [Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19]). Key innovations of this trial include 1) a novel smartphone-based communication process that facilitates rapid enrollment and intervention delivery while allowing social distancing and conservation of personal protective equipment, 2) Bayesian response-adaptive randomization to allow preferential assignment to the most effective intervention and expedite trial completion compared with frequentist designs, 3) remote electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes and electronic medical record data, and 4) pragmatic prospective use of patient-reported data and data collected as part of routine clinical care. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04344587).

Comparative Effectiveness of Heart Rate Control Medications for the Treatment of Sepsis-Associated Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular response frequently complicates the management of critically ill patients with sepsis and may necessitate the initiation of medication to avoid hemodynamic compromise. However, the optimal medication to achieve rate control for AF with rapid ventricular response in sepsis is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the comparative effectiveness of frequently used AF medications (ß-blockers, calcium channel blockers, amiodarone, and digoxin) on heart rate (HR) reduction among critically ill patients with sepsis and AF with rapid ventricular response? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study among patients with sepsis and AF with rapid ventricular response (HR > 110 beats/min). We compared the rate control effectiveness of ß-blockers to calcium channel blockers, amiodarone, and digoxin using multivariate-adjusted, time-varying exposures in competing risk models (for death and addition of another AF medication), adjusting for fixed and time-varying confounders. RESULTS: Among 666 included patients, 50.6% initially received amiodarone, 10.1% received a ß-blocker, 33.8% received a calcium channel blocker, and 5.6% received digoxin. The adjusted hazard ratio for HR of < 110 beats/min by 1 h was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.34-0.74) for amiodarone vs ß-blocker, 0.37 (95% CI, 0.18-0.77) for digoxin vs ß-blocker, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.51-1.11) for calcium channel blocker vs ß-blocker. By 6 h, the adjusted hazard ratio for HR < 110 beats/min was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.47-0.97) for amiodarone vs ß-blocker, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36-1.004) for digoxin vs ß-blocker, and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.71-1.49) for calcium channel blocker vs ß-blocker. INTERPRETATION: In a large cohort of patients with sepsis and AF with rapid ventricular response, a ß-blocker treatment strategy was associated with improved HR control at 1 h, but generally similar HR control at 6 h compared with amiodarone, calcium channel blocker, or digoxin.