Improving Aseptic Technique During the Treatment of Pediatric Septic Shock: A Comparison of 2 Rapid Fluid Delivery Methods

Evaluation of the Implementation of a Novel Fluid Resuscitation Device in the Prehospital Care of Sepsis Patients: Application of the Implementation Outcomes Framework

OBJECTIVES

Early identification and fluid resuscitation are recognized performance measures within sepsis care. Despite fluid resuscitation, fluid goals are often not achieved in the prehospital environment. Furthermore, description of implementation process and evaluation of implementation success are historically underreported in prehospital research. The objective of this study was to contextualize and evaluate the system-wide implementation of a novel fluid resuscitation device, the LifeFlow PLUS®, in the treatment of prehospital sepsis patients.

METHODS

A single urban emergency medical services (EMS) system internally decided to adopt a novel fluid resuscitation device. This EMS system added the device to the clinical care guidelines of suspected sepsis patients. Prior to and during implementation of the new guidelines, several strategies were undertaken to promote consistent, appropriate system-wide use of the device. A mixed methods study design was deployed. Surveys of EMS clinicians and leaders assessed perceptions of the device and sepsis education prior to field implementation of the device. Clinician and leader semi-structured interviews assessed implementation experience and device adoption. Document analysis evaluated deployment of implementation strategies. Data were triangulated to contextualize implementation and evaluate success.

RESULTS

Clinician (88%) and leader (91%) confidence in appropriate clinician device use and device superiority for sepsis care (73 and 100%, respectively) were high. Clinicians (58%) were less likely to view the device as easy to implement compared to leaders (73%). Three themes were developed from semi-structured interviews, including "exposure" to the device, "reinforcing factors" to prompt device use, and "clinician buy-in." Twenty unique implementation strategies (e.g., dynamic trainings, mandating change) were used to promote successful system-wide device adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall implementation success of this novel fluid resuscitation device was moderate. Barriers to adoption included complexity of clinical decision-making and ease of device use. Facilitators to adoption included the use of multiple modes of education, clinical reminders, presenting evidence of device benefit, and prehospital culture. Prior to future prehospital implementation programs, EMS systems should focus on identifying and addressing key barriers and facilitators to improve adoption.

When Minutes Matter: Rapid Infusion in Emergency Care

Purpose of Review

This review provides historical context and an update on recent advancements in volume resuscitation for circulatory shock. Emergency department providers who manage critically ill patients with undifferentiated shock will benefit from the insights of early pioneers and an overview of newer techniques which can be used to optimize resuscitation in the first minutes of care.

Recent Findings

Rapid infusion of fluids and blood products can be a life-saving intervention in the management of circulatory and hemorrhagic shock. Recent controversy over the role of fluid resuscitation in sepsis and trauma management has obscured the importance of early and rapid infusion of sufficient volume to restore circulation and improve organ perfusion. Evidence from high-quality studies demonstrates that rapid and early resuscitation improves patient outcomes.

Summary

Current practice standards, guidelines, and available literature support the rapid reversal of shock as a key priority in the treatment of hypotension from traumatic and non-traumatic conditions. An improved understanding of the physiologic rationale of rapid infusion and the timing, volume, and methods of fluid delivery will help clinicians improve care for critically ill patients presenting with shock.

Clinical Case

A 23-year-old male presents to the emergency department (ED) after striking a tree while riding an all-terrain vehicle. On arrival at the scene, first responders found an unconscious patient with an open skull fracture and a Glasgow coma scale score of 3. Bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation was initiated, and a semi-rigid cervical collar was placed prior to transport to your ED for stabilization while awaiting air transport to the nearest trauma center. You are the attending emergency medicine physician at a community ED staffed by two attending physicians, two physicians assistants, and six nurses covering 22 beds. On ED arrival, the patient has no spontaneous respiratory effort, and vital signs are as follows: pulse of 140 bpm, blood pressure of 65/30 mmHg, and oxygen saturation 85% while receiving BVM ventilation with 100% oxygen. He is bleeding profusely through a gauze dressing applied to the exposed dura. The prehospital team was unable to establish intravenous access. What are the management priorities for this patient in shock, and how should his hypotension best be addressed?

A simulation study of high-flow versus normal-flow three-way stopcock for rapid fluid administration in emergency situations: A randomised crossover design

BACKGROUND

Initial fluid resuscitation is presumed to be important for treating shock in the resuscitation phase. However, little is known how quickly and easily a physician could perform a rapid infusion with a syringe.

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesised that using a high-flow three-way stopcock (HTS) makes initial fluid resuscitation faster and easier than using a normal-flow three-way stopcock (NTS).

METHODS

This was a simulation study with a prospective, nonblinded randomised crossover design. Twenty physicians were randomly assigned into two groups. Each participant used six peripheral intravenous infusion circuits, three with the HTS and the others with the NTS, and three cannulae, 22, 20, and 18 gauge (G). The first group started with the HTS first, while the other started with the NTS first. They were asked to inject the fluid as quick as possible. We compared the time until the participants finished rapid infusions of 500 ml of 0.9% saline and the practitioner's effort.

RESULTS

In infusion circuits attached with the 22G cannula, the mean difference using the HTS and the NTS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 16.30 ml/min (7.65-24.94) (p < 0.01). In those attached with the 20G cannula, the mean difference (95% CI) was 23.47 (12.43-34.51) (p < 0.01). In those attached with the 18G cannula, the mean difference (95% CI) was 42.53 (28.68-56.38) (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that the push-and-pull technique using the HTS was faster, easier, and less tiresome than using the NTS, with a statistically significant difference. In the resuscitation phase, initial and faster infusion is important. If only a single physician or other staff member such as a nurse is attending or does not have accessibility to any other devices in such an environment where medical resources are scarce, performing the push-and-pull technique using the HTS could help a physician to perform fluid resuscitation faster. By setting up the HTS instead of the NTS from the beginning, we would be able to begin fluid resuscitation immediately while preparing other devices.

Improving fluid resuscitation in pediatric shock with LifeFlow®: a retrospective case series and review of the literature

Rapid delivery of an intravenous fluid bolus is commonly used in pediatric emergency care for the treatment of shock and hypotension. Early fluid delivery targeted at shock reversal results in improved patient outcomes, yet current methods of fluid resuscitation often limit the ability of providers to achieve fluid delivery goals. We report on the early clinical experience of a new technique for rapid fluid resuscitation. The LifeFlow^® infuser is a manually operated device that combines a syringe, automatic check valve, and high-flow tubing set with an ergonomic handle to enable faster and more efficient delivery of fluid by a single health care provider. LifeFlow is currently FDA-cleared for the delivery of crystalloid and colloids. Four cases are presented in which the LifeFlow device was used for emergent fluid resuscitation: a 6-month-old with septic shock, a 2-year-old with intussusception and shock, an 11-year-old with pneumonia and septic shock, and a 15-year-old with trauma and hemorrhagic shock.