Opioid Weaning Protocol Using Morphine Compared With Nonprotocolized Methadone Associated With Decreased Dose and Duration of Opioid After Norwood Procedure.

OBJECTIVES: Opioids are used to manage pain, comfort, maintain devices, and decrease oxygen consumption around Norwood palliation (NP), but in high dose and prolonged exposure, they increase risk of tolerance and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IAWS). Variability in practice for IAWS prevention potentially increases opioid dose and duration. We hypothesize that protocolized weaning with morphine (MOR) versus nonprotocolized methadone (MTD) is associated with reduction in opioid exposure. DESIGN: A before-versus-after study of outcomes of patients weaned with protocolized MOR versus nonprotocolized MTD including subset analysis for those patients with complications postoperatively. Primary endpoints include daily, wean phase, and total morphine milligram equivalent (MMEq) dose, duration, and, secondarily, length of stay (LOS). SETTING: Quaternary-care pediatric cardiac ICU. PATIENTS: Neonates undergoing single-ventricle palliation. INTERVENTIONS: Introduction of IAWS prevention protocol. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Analysis included 54 patients who underwent the NP in 2017-2018 including the subset analysis of 34 who had a complicated postoperative course. The total and wean phase opioid doses for the MTD group were significantly higher than that for the MOR group: 258 versus 22 and 115 versus 6 MMEq/kg; p < 0.001. Duration of opioid exposure was 63 days in the MTD group and 12 days in MOR group (p < 0.001). Subanalysis of the complicated subset also identifies higher total and wean dose for MTD group (293 vs 41 and 116 vs 7 MMEq/kg; p < 0.001) with a longer duration (65 vs 22 days; p = 0.001). Within the subset, LOS was 55% longer in the MTD group than that in the MOR group (150 vs 67 d; p = 0.01) and not different in the uncomplicated group. CONCLUSIONS: After complex NP, a protocolized opioid weaning using MOR versus MTD is associated with 65% shorter opioid duration, 10-fold decreased dose, and shortened LOS.

Paediatric cardiac rapid response systems: a survey of multicentre practices.

INTRODUCTION: While the efficacy and guidelines for implementation of rapid response systems are well established, limited information exists about rapid response paradigms for paediatric cardiac patients despite their unique pathophysiology. METHODS: With endorsement from the Paediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Society, we designed and implemented a web-based survey of paediatric cardiac and multidisciplinary ICU medical directors in the United States of America and Canada to better understand paediatric cardiac rapid response practices. RESULTS: Sixty-five (52%) of 125 centres responded. Seventy-one per cent of centres had ∼300 non-ICU beds and 71% had dedicated cardiac ICUs. To respond to cardiac patients, dedicated cardiac rapid response teams were utilised in 29% of all centres (39% and 5% in centres with and without dedicated cardiac ICUs, respectively) [p = 0.006]. Early warning scores were utilised in 62% of centres. Only 31% reported that rapid response teams received specialised training. Transfers to ICU were higher for cardiac (73%) compared to generalised rapid response events (54%). The monitoring and reassessment of patients not transferred to ICU after the rapid response was variable. Cardiac and respiratory arrests outside the ICU were infrequent. Only 29% of centres formally appraise critical deterioration events (need for ventilation and/or inotropes post-rapid response) and 34% perform post-event debriefs. CONCLUSION: Paediatric cardiac rapid response practices are variable and dedicated paediatric cardiac rapid response systems are infrequent in the United States of America and Canada. Opportunity exists to delineate best practices for paediatric cardiac rapid response and standardise practices for activation, training, patient monitoring post-rapid response events, and outcomes evaluation.

Virtual Communication Embedded Bedside ICU Rounds: A Hybrid Rounds Practice Adapted to the Coronavirus Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 containment strategies created challenges with patient-centered ICU rounds. We examined how hybrid rounds with virtual communication added to in-person rounds could facilitate social distancing while maintaining patient-centered care. DESIGN: Continuous quality improvement. SETTING: Quaternary care referral pediatric hospital. PATIENTS: Daytime rounds conducted on PICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: Following a needs assessment survey and pilot trials, multiple technological solutions were implemented in a series of plan-do-study-act cycles. Hybrid rounds model was deployed where a videoconference platform was used to establish communication between the bedside personnel (nurse, patient/family, and partial ICU team) with remotely located remaining ICU team, ancillary, and consultant providers. Floor labels marking 6-feet distance were placed for rounders. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcome metrics included compliance with social distancing, mixed methods analysis of surveys, direct interviews of providers and families, and reports of safety concerns. The clinicians adopted hybrid rounds readily. Compliance with social distancing and use of floor labels needed reminders. One-hundred fourteen providers completed the feedback survey. Twenty-five providers and 11 families were interviewed. Feedback about hybrid rounds included inability to teach effectively, suboptimal audio-video quality, loss of situational awareness of patient/unit acuity, alarm interference, and inability to socially distance during other ICU interactions. Benefits noted were improved ancillary input, fewer interruptions, improved efficiency, opportunity to integrate with data platforms, and engage remote consultants and families. Nurses and families appreciated the efforts to ensure safety but wanted the ICU attending/fellow supervising the team to participate at bedside, during rounds. Clinicians appreciated the multidisciplinary input but felt that teaching was difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid rounds employed during pandemic facilitated social distancing while retaining patient-centered multidisciplinary ICU rounds but compromised teaching during rounds. A change to ingrained rounding habits needs team commitment and ongoing optimization. The hybrid rounds model has potential for generalizability to other settings.