The Coming of Age of Implementation Science and Research in Critical Care Medicine

Ultrasound in Cardiopulmonary Arrest and Resuscitation: Constructing Comprehensive Implementation Frameworks in High-Risk Settings

OBJECTIVES

Information obtained from point-of-care ultrasound during cardiopulmonary arrest and resuscitation (POCUS-CA) can be used to identify underlying pathophysiology and provide life-sustaining interventions. However, integration of POCUS-CA into resuscitation care is inconsistent. We used expert consensus building methodology to help identify discrete barriers to clinical integration. We subsequently applied implementation science frameworks to generate generalizable strategies to overcome these barriers.

MEASURES AND MAIN RESULTS

Two multidisciplinary expert working groups used KJ Reverse-Merlin consensus building method to identify and characterize barriers contributing to failed POCUS-CA utilization in a hypothetical future state. Identified barriers were organized into affinity groups. The Center for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework and Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR-ERIC) tool were used to identify strategies to guide POCUS-US implementation.

RESULTS

Sixteen multidisciplinary resuscitation content experts participated in the working groups and identified individual barriers, consolidated into 19 unique affinity groups that mapped 12 separate CFIR constructs, representing all 5 CFIR domains. The CFIR-ERIC tool identified the following strategies as most impactful to address barriers described in the affinity groups: identify and prepare champions, conduct local needs assessment, conduct local consensus discussions, and conduct educational meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

KJ Reverse-Merlin consensus building identified multiple barriers to implementing POCUS-CA. Implementation science methodologies identified and prioritized strategies to overcome barriers and guide POCUS-CA implementation across diverse clinical settings.

Barriers to Implementing the ICU Liberation Bundle in a Single-center Pediatric and Cardiac ICUs

Objectives: The intensive care unit (ICU) Liberation "ABCDEF" Bundle improves outcomes in critically ill adults. We aimed to identify common barriers to Pediatric ICU Liberation Bundle element implementation, to describe differences in barrier perception by ICU staff role, and to describe changes in reported barriers over time. Study Design: A 91-item survey was developed based on existing literature, iteratively revised, and tested by the PICU Liberation Committee at Seattle Children's Hospital, a tertiary free-standing academic children's hospital. Voluntary surveys were administered electronically to all ICU staff twice over 4-week periods in 2017 and 2020. Survey Respondents: 119 (2017) and 163 (2020) pediatric and cardiac ICU staff, including nurses (n = 142, 50%), respiratory therapists (RTs) (n = 46, 16%), attending and fellow physicians, hospitalists, and advanced practice providers (APPs) (n = 62, 22%), physical, occupational, and speech-language pathology therapists (n = 25, 9%), and pharmacists (n = 7, 2%). Measurements and Main Results: Respondents widely agreed that increased workload (78%-100% across roles), communication (53%-84%), and lack of RT-directed ventilator weaning (68%-88%) are barriers to implementation. Other barriers differed by role. In 2020, nurses reported liability (59%) and personal injury (68%) concerns, patient severity of illness (24%), and family discomfort with ICU liberation practices (41%) more frequently than physicians and APPs (16%, 6%, 8%, and 19%, respectively; P < .01 for all). Between 2017 and 2020, some barriers changed: RTs endorsed discomfort with early mobilization less frequently (50% vs 11%, P = .028) and nurses reported concern for patient harm less frequently (51% vs 24%, P = .004). Conclusions: Implementation efforts aimed at addressing known barriers, including educating staff on the safety of early mobility, considering respiratory therapist-directed ventilator weaning, and standardizing interdisciplinary discussion of Pediatric ICU Liberation Bundle elements, will be needed to overcome barriers and improve ICU Liberation Bundle implementation.

Tackling Brain and Muscle Dysfunction in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Survivors: NHLBI Workshop Report

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with long-term impairments in brain and muscle function that significantly impact the quality of life of those who survive the acute illness. The mechanisms underlying these impairments are not yet well understood, and evidence-based interventions to minimize the burden on patients remain unproved. The NHLBI of the NIH assembled a workshop in April 2023 to review the state of the science regarding ARDS-associated brain and muscle dysfunction, to identify gaps in current knowledge, and to determine priorities for future investigation. The workshop included presentations by scientific leaders across the translational science spectrum and was open to the public as well as the scientific community. This report describes the themes discussed at the workshop as well as recommendations to advance the field toward the goal of improving the health and well-being of ARDS survivors.

Implementation Science Research in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine

OBJECTIVES

Delay or failure to consistently adopt evidence-based or consensus-based best practices into routine clinical care is common, including for patients in the PICU. PICU patients can fail to receive potentially beneficial diagnostic or therapeutic interventions, worsening the burden of illness and injury during critical illness. Implementation science (IS) has emerged to systematically address this problem, but its use of in the PICU has been limited to date. We therefore present a conceptual and methodologic overview of IS for the pediatric intensivist.

DESIGN

The members of Excellence in Pediatric Implementation Science (ECLIPSE; part of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators Network) represent multi-institutional expertise in the use of IS in the PICU. This narrative review reflects the collective knowledge and perspective of the ECLIPSE group about why IS can benefit PICU patients, how to distinguish IS from quality improvement (QI), and how to evaluate an IS article.

RESULTS

IS requires a shift in one's thinking, away from questions and outcomes that define traditional clinical or translational research, including QI. Instead, in the IS rather than the QI literature, the terminology, definitions, and language differs by specifically focusing on relative importance of generalizable knowledge, as well as aspects of study design, scale, and timeframe over which the investigations occur.

CONCLUSIONS

Research in pediatric critical care practice must acknowledge the limitations and potential for patient harm that may result from a failure to implement evidence-based or professionals' consensus-based practices. IS represents an innovative, pragmatic, and increasingly popular approach that our field must readily embrace in order to improve our ability to care for critically ill children.

Lessons Learned From a Systematic, Hospital-Wide Implementation of the ABCDEF Bundle: A Survey Evaluation

Objective

We recently reported the first part of a study testing the impact of data literacy training on "assessing pain, spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, choice of analgesia and sedation, delirium monitoring/management, early exercise/mobility, and family and patient empowerment" [ABCDEF [A-F]) compliance. The purpose of the current study, part 2, was to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation approach by surveying clinical staff to examine staff knowledge, skill, motivation, and organizational resources.

DESIGN

The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis framework was used to study knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences. Assumed influences identified in the literature were used to design the A-F bundle implementation strategies. The influences were validated against a survey distributed to the ICU interprofessional team.

SETTING

Single-center study was conducted in eight adult ICUs in a quaternary academic medical center.

SUBJECTS

Interprofessional ICU clinical team.

INTERVENTIONS

A quantitative survey was sent to 386 participants to evaluate the implementation design postimplementation. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to understand the relationship between the KMO influences and the questions posed to validate the influence. Descriptive statistics were used to identify strengths needed to sustain performance and weaknesses that required improvement to increase A-F bundle adherence.

MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS

The survey received an 83% response rate. The exploratory factor analysis confirmed that 38 of 42 questions had a strong relationship to the KMO influences, validating the survey's utility in evaluating the effectiveness of implementation design. A total of 12 KMO influences were identified, 8 were categorized as a strength and 4 as a weakness of the implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study used an evidence-based gap analysis framework to demonstrate key implementation approaches needed to increase A-F bundle compliance. The following drivers were recommended as essential methods required for successful protocol implementation: data literacy training and performance monitoring, organizational support, value proposition, multidisciplinary collaboration, and interprofessional teamwork activities. We believe the learning generated in this two-part study is applicable to implementation design beyond the A-F bundle.

Assessment and management of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and delirium in pediatric intensive care units across Europe: An ESPNIC survey

INTRODUCTION

Analgesia and sedation are essential for the care of children in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU); however, when prolonged, they may be associated with iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS) and delirium. We sought to evaluate current practices on IWS and delirium assessment and management (including non-pharmacologic strategies as early mobilization) and to investigate associations between the presence of an analgosedation protocol and IWS and delirium monitoring, analgosedation weaning, and early mobilization.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter cross-sectional survey-based study collecting data from one experienced physician or nurse per PICU in Europe from January to April 2021. We then investigated differences among PICUs that did or did not follow an analgosedation protocol.

RESULTS

Among 357 PICUs, 215 (60%) responded across 27 countries. IWS was systematically monitored with a validated scale in 62% of PICUs, mostly using the Withdrawal Assessment Tool-1 (53%). The main first-line treatment for IWS was a rescue bolus with interruption of weaning (41%). Delirium was systematically monitored in 58% of PICUs, mostly with the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium scale (48%) and the Sophia Observation Scale for Pediatric Delirium (34%). The main reported first-line treatment for delirium was dexmedetomidine (45%) or antipsychotic drugs (40%). Seventy-one percent of PICUs reported to follow an analgosedation protocol. Multivariate analyses adjusted for PICU characteristics showed that PICUs using a protocol were significantly more likely to systematically monitor IWS (odds ratio [OR] 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-3.67) and delirium (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.07-3.72), use a protocol for analgosedation weaning (OR 6.38, 95% CI 3.20-12.71) and promote mobilization (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.63-7.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring and management of IWS and delirium are highly variable among European PICUs. The use of an analgosedation protocol was associated with an increased likelihood of monitoring IWS and delirium, performing a structured analgosedation weaning and promoting mobilization. Education on this topic and interprofessional collaborations are highly needed to help reduce the burden of analgosedation-associated adverse outcomes.

Causes, Consequences, and Treatments of Sleep and Circadian Disruption in the ICU: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Sleep and circadian disruption (SCD) is common and severe in the ICU. On the basis of rigorous evidence in non-ICU populations and emerging evidence in ICU populations, SCD is likely to have a profound negative impact on patient outcomes. Thus, it is urgent that we establish research priorities to advance understanding of ICU SCD. Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary group with relevant expertise to participate in an American Thoracic Society Workshop. Workshop objectives included identifying ICU SCD subtopics of interest, key knowledge gaps, and research priorities. Members attended remote sessions from March to November 2021. Recorded presentations were prepared and viewed by members before Workshop sessions. Workshop discussion focused on key gaps and related research priorities. The priorities listed herein were selected on the basis of rank as established by a series of anonymous surveys. Results: We identified the following research priorities: establish an ICU SCD definition, further develop rigorous and feasible ICU SCD measures, test associations between ICU SCD domains and outcomes, promote the inclusion of mechanistic and patient-centered outcomes within large clinical studies, leverage implementation science strategies to maximize intervention fidelity and sustainability, and collaborate among investigators to harmonize methods and promote multisite investigation. Conclusions: ICU SCD is a complex and compelling potential target for improving ICU outcomes. Given the influence on all other research priorities, further development of rigorous, feasible ICU SCD measurement is a key next step in advancing the field.

Pediatric Critical Care in the Twenty-first Century and Beyond

Pediatric critical care addresses prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of organ dysfunction in the setting of increasingly complex patients, therapies, and environments. Soon burgeoning data science will enable all aspects of intensive care: driving facilitated diagnostics, empowering a learning health-care environment, promoting continuous advancement of care, and informing the continuum of critical care outside the intensive care unit preceding and following critical illness/injury. Although novel technology will progressively objectify personalized critical care, humanism, practiced at the bedside, defines the essence of pediatric critical care now and in the future.

Delivery of Lung-protective Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Hybrid Implementation-Effectiveness Trial

Rationale: Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) improves outcomes for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but adherence remains inadequate. Objectives: To measure the process and clinical impacts of implementation of a science-based intervention to improve LPV adherence for patients with ARDS, in part by increased use of clinical decision support (CDS). Methods: We conducted a type III hybrid implementation/effectiveness pilot trial enrolling adult patients with ARDS admitted to three hospitals before and after the launch of a multimodal implementation intervention to increase the use of mechanical ventilation CDS and improve LPV adherence. The primary outcome was patients' percentage of time adherent to low tidal volume (⩽6.5 ml/kg predicted body weight) ventilation (LTVV). Secondary outcomes included adherence to prescribed oxygenation settings, the use of the CDS tool's independent oxygenation and ventilation components, ventilator-free days, and mortality. Analyses employed multivariable regression to compare adjusted pre- versus postintervention outcomes after the exclusion of a postintervention wash-in period. A sensitivity analysis measured process outcomes' level and trend change postintervention using segmented regression. Results: The 446 included patients had a mean age of 60 years, and 43% were female. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar pre- versus postintervention. The adjusted proportion of adherent time increased postintervention for LTVV (9.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-14.5%) and prescribed oxygenation settings (11.9%; 95% CI, 7.2-16.5%), as did the probability patients spent ⩾90% of ventilated time on LTVV (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.58; 95% CI, 1.64-4.10) and use of ventilation CDS (aOR, 41.3%; 95% CI, 35.9-46.7%) and oxygenation CDS (aOR, 54.3%; 95% CI, 50.9-57.7%). Ventilator-free days (aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62) and 28-day mortality (aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.20) did not change significantly after intervention. Segmented regression analysis supported a causal relationship between the intervention and improved CDS usage but suggested trends before intervention rather than the studied intervention could explain increased LPV adherence after the intervention. Conclusions: In this pilot trial, a multimodal implementation intervention was associated with increased use of ventilator management CDS for patients with ARDS but was not associated with differences in clinical outcomes and may not have independently caused the observed postintervention improvements in LPV adherence. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03984175).

Factors Influencing the Implementation of Prone Positioning during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study

Rationale: The adoption of prone positioning for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has historically been poor. However, in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) ARDS, proning has increased. Understanding the factors influencing this change is important for further expanding and sustaining the use of prone positioning in appropriate clinical settings. Objectives: To characterize factors influencing the implementation of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with 40 intensive care unit (ICU) team members (physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, respiratory therapists, and physical therapists) working at two academic hospitals. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, a widely used implementation science framework outlining important features of implementation, to structure the interview guide and thematic analysis of interviews. Results: ICU clinicians reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, proning was viewed as standard early therapy for COVID-19 ARDS rather than salvage therapy for refractory hypoxemia. By caring for large volumes of proned patients, clinicians gained increased comfort with proning and now view proning as a low-risk, high-benefit intervention. Within ICUs, adequate numbers of trained staff members, increased team agreement around proning, and the availability of specific equipment (e.g., to limit pressure injuries) facilitated greater proning use. Hospital-level supports included proning teams, centralized educational resources specific to the management of COVID-19 (including a recommendation for prone positioning), and an electronic medical record proning order. Important implementation processes included informal dissemination of best practices through on-the-job learning and team interactions during routine bedside care. Conclusions: The implementation of prone positioning for COVID-19 ARDS took place in the context of evolving clinician viewpoints and ICU team cultures. Proning was facilitated by hospital support and buy-in and leadership from bedside clinicians. The successful implementation of prone positioning during the COVID-19 pandemic may serve as a model for the implementation of other evidence-based therapies in critical care.

Comparing Prone Positioning Use in COVID-19 Versus Historic Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Use of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from COVID-19 may be greater than in patients treated for ARDS before the pandemic. However, the magnitude of this increase, sources of practice variation, and the extent to which use adheres to guidelines is unknown.

Characteristics of Post-ICU and Post-COVID Recovery Clinics in 29 U.S. Health Systems

The multifaceted long-term impairments resulting from critical illness and COVID-19 require interdisciplinary management approaches in the recovery phase of illness. Operational insights into the structure and process of recovery clinics (RCs) from heterogeneous health systems are needed. This study describes the structure and process characteristics of existing and newly implemented ICU-RCs and COVID-RCs in a subset of large health systems in the United States.

Implementation Science in Pediatric Critical Care - Sedation and Analgesia Practices as a Case Study

Sedation and analgesia (SA) management is essential practice in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Over the past decade, there has been significant interest in optimal SA management strategy, due to reports of the adverse effects of SA medications and their relationship to ICU delirium. We reviewed 13 studies examining SA practices in the PICU over the past decade for the purposes of reporting the study design, outcomes of interest, SA protocols used, strategies for implementation, and the patient-centered outcomes. We highlighted the paucity of evidence-base for these practices and also described the existing gaps in the intersection of implementation science (IS) and SA protocols in the PICU. Future studies would benefit from a focus on effective implementation strategies to introduce and sustain evidence-based SA protocols, as well as novel quasi-experimental study designs that will help determine their impact on relevant clinical outcomes, such as the occurrence of ICU delirium. Adoption of the available evidence-based practices into routine care in the PICU remains challenging. Using SA practice as an example, we illustrated the need for a structured approach to the implementation science in pediatric critical care. Key components of the successful adoption of evidence-based best practice include the assessment of the local context, both resources and barriers, followed by a context-specific strategy for implementation and a focus on sustainability and integration of the practice into the permanent workflow.

OUP accepted manuscript

Antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship initiatives have become increasingly important in paediatric settings. The value of qualitative approaches to conduct stewardship work in paediatric patients is being increasingly recognized. This article seeks to provide an introduction to basic elements of qualitative study designs and provide an overview of how these methods have successfully been applied to both antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship work in paediatric patients. A multidisciplinary team of experts in paediatric infectious diseases, paediatric critical care and qualitative methods has written a perspective piece introducing readers to qualitative stewardship work in children, intended as an overview to highlight the importance of such methods and as a starting point for further work. We describe key differences between qualitative and quantitative methods, and the potential benefits of qualitative approaches. We present examples of qualitative research in five discrete topic areas of high relevance for paediatric stewardship work: provider attitudes; provider prescribing behaviours; stewardship in low-resource settings; parents’ perspectives on stewardship; and stewardship work focusing on select high-risk patients. Finally, we explore the opportunities for multidisciplinary academic collaboration, incorporation of innovative scientific disciplines and young investigator growth through the use of qualitative research in paediatric stewardship. Qualitative approaches can bring rich insights and critically needed new information to antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts in children. Such methods are an important tool in the armamentarium against worsening antimicrobial resistance, and a major opportunity for investigators interested in moving the needle forward for stewardship in paediatric patients.

Experiences of current vital signs monitoring practices and views of wearable monitoring: A qualitative study in patients and nurses

Aims

To understand current experiences of vital signs monitoring of patients and clinical staff on a surgical ward, and views on the introduction of wearable ambulatory monitoring into the general ward environment.

Design

Qualitative study.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews using topic guides were conducted with 15 patients and 15 nurses on a surgical ward between July 2018 and August 2019. The concept of ambulatory wearable devices for clinical monitoring was introduced at the end of the interview.

Results

Three interconnected themes were identified. Vital sign data as evidence for escalation, examined nurses' use of data to support escalation of care and the implications for patients perceived to be deteriorating who have not reached the threshold for escalation. The second theme, Trustworthiness of vital sign data, described nurses’ practice of using manual measurements to recheck or confirm automated vital signs readings when concerned. The final theme, finding a balance between continuous and intermittent monitoring, both patients and nurses agreed that although continuous monitoring may improve safety and reassurance, these needed to be balanced with multiple limitations. Factors to be considered included noise pollution, comfort, and impact on patient mobility and independence. Introduction of the concept of ambulatory wearable devices was viewed positively by both groups as offering solutions to some of the issues identified with traditional monitoring. However, most agreed that this would not be suitable for all patients and should not replace direct nurse/patient contact.

Conclusion

Both patients and staff identified the benefits of continuous monitoring to improve patient safety but, due to limitations, use should be carefully considered and patient‐centred.

Impact

Feedback from nurses and patients suggests there is scope for ambulatory monitoring systems to be integrated into the hospital environment; however, both groups emphasized these should not add more noise to the ward nor replace direct nursing contact.