Intensivist Presence at Code Events Is Associated with High Survival and Increased Documentation Rates

Identifying Gaps in Resuscitation Practices Across Level-IV Neonatal Intensive Care Units

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe resuscitation practices in level-IV neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and identify possible areas of improvement.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a cross-sectional cohort survey and conducted at the Level-IV NICUs of Children's Hospital Neonatal Consortium (CHNC). The survey was developed with consensus from resuscitation and education experts in the CHNC and pilot tested. An electronic survey was sent to individual site sponsors to determine unit demographics, resuscitation team composition, and resuscitation-related clinical practices.

RESULTS

Of the sites surveyed, 33 of 34 sites responded. Unit average daily census ranged from less than 30 to greater than 100, with the majority (72%) of the sites between 30 and 75 patients. A designated code response team was utilized in 18% of NICUs, only 30% assigned roles before or during codes. The Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) was the exclusive algorithm used during codes in 61% of NICUs, and 34% used a combination of NRP and the Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS). Most (81%) of the sites required neonatal attendings to maintain NRP training. A third of sites (36%) lacked protocols for high-acuity events. A code review process existed in 76% of participating NICUs, but only 9% of centers enter code data into a national database.

CONCLUSION

There is variability among units regarding designated code team presence and composition, resuscitation algorithm, protocols for high-acuity events, and event review. These inconsistencies in resuscitation teams and practices provide an opportunity for standardization and, ultimately, improved resuscitation performance. Resources, education, and efforts could be directed to these areas to potentially impact future neonatal outcomes of the complex patients cared for in level-IV NICUs.

KEY POINTS

· Resuscitation practice is variable in level-IV NICUs.. · Resuscitation algorithm training is not uniform. · Standardized protocols for high-acuity low-occurrence (HALO) events are lacking.

Defining Intensivists: A Retrospective Analysis of the Published Studies in the United States, 2010-2020

OBJECTIVES

The Society of Critical Care Medicine last published an intensivist definition in 1992. Subsequently, there have been many publications relating to intensivists. Our purpose is to assess how contemporary studies define intensivist physicians.

DESIGN

Systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (2010-2020) for publication titles with the terms intensivist, and critical care or intensive care physician, specialist, or consultant. We included studies focusing on adult U.S. intensivists and excluded non-data-driven reports, non-U.S. publications, and pediatric or neonatal ICU reports. We aggregated the study title intensivist nomenclatures and parsed Introduction and Method sections to discern the text used to define intensivists. Fourteen parameters were found and grouped into five definitional categories: A) No definition, B) Background training and certification, C) Works in ICU, D) Staffing, and E) Database related. Each study was re-evaluated against these parameters and grouped into three definitional classes (single, multiple, or no definition). The prevalence of each parameter is compared between groups using Fisher exact test.

SETTING

U.S. adult ICUs and databases.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 657 studies, 105 (16%) met inclusion criteria. Within the study titles, 17 phrases were used to describe an intensivist; these were categorized as intensivist in 61 titles (58%), specialty intensivist in 30 titles (29%), and ICU/critical care physician in 14 titles (13%). Thirty-one studies (30%) used a single parameter (B-E) as their definition, 63 studies (60%) used more than one parameter (B-E) as their definition, and 11 studies (10%) had no definition (A). The most common parameter "Works in ICU" (C) in 52 studies (50%) was more likely to be used in conjunction with other parameters rather than as a standalone parameter (multiple parameters vs single-parameter studies; 73% vs 17%; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no consistency of intensivist nomenclature or definitions in contemporary adult intensivist studies in the United States.

Impact of trained intensivist coverage on survival outcomes after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A nationwide cohort study in South Korea

AIM

We aimed to investigate whether trained intensivist coverage affects survival outcomes following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ICPR) for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA).

METHODS

All adult patients who received ICPR for IHCA between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019 in South Korea were included. Patients who received ICPR in hospitals with trained intensivist coverage for ICU staffing were defined as the intensivist group, whereas other patients were considered the non-intensivist group.

RESULTS

In total 68,286 adult patients (36,025 [52.8%] in the intensivist group and 32,261 [47.2%] in the non-intensivist group) were included in the analysis. After propensity score (PS) matching 40,988 patients (20,494 in each group) were included. In logistic regression after PS matching, the intensivist group showed a 17% (odds ratio: 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.22; P < 0.001) higher live discharge rate after ICPR than the non-intensivist group. In Cox regression after PS matching, the 6-month and the 1-year mortality rates in the intensivist group after ICPR were 11% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.87-0.91; P < 0.001) and 10% (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.88-0.92; P < 0.001) lower than those in the non-intensivist group, respectively. In Kaplan-Meir estimation the median survival time after ICPR in the intensivist group was 12.0 days (95% CI: 11.6-12.4) while that in the non-intensivist group was 8.0 days (95% CI: 7.7-8.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Trained intensivist coverage in the ICU was associated with improvements in both short and long-term survival outcomes after ICPR for IHCA.

Should critical care doctors be part of the cardiac arrest call team?

The composition of the cardiac arrest team varies widely both throughout the UK and the world. There are no agreed standards regarding the composition of the resuscitation team, and variety in teams is often dictated by availability of staff and financial constraints. This article discusses the evidence for and against the inclusion of critical care doctors on the cardiac arrest call team.

Characterising variation in composition and activation criteria of rapid response and cardiac arrest teams: a survey of Medicare participating hospitals in five American states

OBJECTIVES

To characterise the variation in composition, leadership, and activation criteria of rapid response and cardiac arrest teams in five north-eastern states of the USA.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study consisting of a voluntary 46-question survey of acute care hospitals in north-eastern USA.

SETTING

Acute care hospitals in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS

Surveys were completed by any member of the rapid response team (RRT) with a working knowledge of team composition and function. Participants were all Medicare-participating acute care hospitals, including teaching and community hospitals as well as hospitals from rural, urban and suburban areas.

RESULTS

Out of 378 hospitals, contacts were identified for 303, and 107 surveys were completed. All but two hospitals had an RRT, 70% of which changed members daily. The most common activation criteria were clinical concern (95%), single vital sign abnormalities (77%) and early warning score (59%). Eighty one per cent of hospitals had a dedicated cardiac arrest team.RRT composition varied widely, with respiratory therapists, critical care nurses, physicians and nurse managers being the most likely to attend (89%, 78%, 64% and 51%, respectively). Consistent presence of critical care physicians was uncommon and both cardiac arrest teams and teams were frequently led by trainee physicians, often without senior supervision.

CONCLUSIONS

As the largest study to date in the USA, we have demonstrated wide heterogeneity, rapid team turnover and a lack of senior supervision of RRT and cardiac arrest teams. These factors likely contribute to the mixed results seen in studies of RRTs.