A study of the perceived risks, benefits and barriers to the use of SDD in adult critical care units (the SuDDICU study)

Protocol summary and statistical analysis plan for the Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract in Intensive Care Unit Patients (SuDDICU) crossover, cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: It is unclear whether the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) improves outcomes in ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and whether SDD is associated with the development of antibiotic resistance. Objective: To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract in Intensive Care Unit Patients (SuDDICU) trial. Design, setting, participants and intervention: SuDDICU is an international, crossover, cluster randomised controlled trial of mechanically ventilated patients in ICUs using two 12-month trial periods. For each period, participating ICUs will implement SDD plus standard care or standard care alone. The SuDDICU drug intervention is an oral paste and gastric suspension of three antibiotics combined with a 4-day course of intravenous antibiotics. Observational ecological assessments will be conducted during five surveillance periods. The trial will be conducted in 19 ICUs in Australia and ten ICUs in Canada and the United Kingdom, and will recruit 15 000-17 000 patients. Recruitment commenced in Australia in 2017. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is all-cause hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include: duration of ventilation, ICU stay and hospital stay; incidence of new antibiotic-resistant organisms during the index ICU admission; changes in antibiotic-resistant organism rates; incidence of new Clostridioides difficile infections; and total use of antibiotics. Results and conclusions: SuDDICU will determine whether the use of SDD plus standard care is associated with a reduction in hospital mortality in ventilated ICU patients compared with standard care alone. It will also quantify the impact of the use of SDD on the development of antibiotic resistance. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000411549) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02389036).

Factors influencing decisions by critical care physicians to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in critically ill adult patients with severe traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Most deaths in critically ill patients with severe traumatic brain injury are associated with a decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments. We aimed to identify the behavioural determinants that influence recommendations by critical care physicians to consider the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive qualitative study based on the Theoretical Domains Framework of critical care physicians caring for patients with severe traumatic brain injury across Canada. We stratified critical care physicians by regions and used a purposive sampling strategy. We conducted semistructured phone interviews using a piloted and pretested interview guide. We transcribed the interviews verbatim and verified the content for accuracy. We performed the analysis using a 3-step approach: coding, generation of specific beliefs and generation of specific themes.

RESULTS

We recruited 20 critical care physicians across 4 geographic regions. After reaching saturation, we identified 7 core themes across 4 Theoretical Domains Framework domains for factors relevant to the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments. Four factors (i.e., clinical triggers, social triggers, interaction with families and intentions with medical decisions) were identified before the decision is made and 3 were identified during the decision-making process (i.e., considerations, priorities and knowledge needs). We identified multiple themes reflecting internal (n = 18, 8 Theoretical Domains Framework domains) and external (n = 15, 6 Theoretical Domains Framework domains) influences on the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments.

INTERPRETATION

We identified several core themes and domains considered by critical care physicians in Canada in the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in critically ill patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Future research should aim at identifying the factors influencing surrogate decision-makers in the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in these patients.

To call or not to call: behavioral determinants influencing the decision of intensivists to consult poison centers for calcium channel blocker poisoning

Purpose: This study aimed to define the behavioral determinants influencing the decision of intensivists to consult a poison center (PC) when managing patients with calcium channel blocker (CCB) poisoning.Material and methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted involving a convenience sample of 18 intensivists. Two independent reviewers analyzed the interview responses using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Based on the impact and frequency of the reported behaviors, we selected the most relevant domains likely to influence intensivists' decision to consult a PC for CCB poisoning.Results: Beliefs influencing physicians positively to consult a PC for CCB poisoning were identified in the following domains: knowledge (e.g., lower level of evidence), social or professional role and identity (e.g., high credibility attributed to the PC), reinforcement (e.g., multiple drug poisoning, infrequent or potentially lethal poisoning, medicolegal considerations), and behavioral regulation (e.g., facilitated access of PC to patient's hospital chart, direct communication with a toxicologist). Beliefs deterring physicians from consulting a PC for CCB poisoning were identified in the following domains: knowledge (e.g., better awareness of recommendations decreases tendency to call), goals (e.g., priority for patient stabilization), and memory, attention, and decision process (e.g., cognitive overload due to an unstable patient).Conclusion: This qualitative study identified potential behavioral targets that future implementation strategies should address to improve collaboration between PCs and intensivists. In light of our results, the Québec PC now asks clinicians if the poisoned patient is unstable prior to collecting any other information. When necessary, a teleconference with the toxicologist is proposed earlier than before.

Barriers and Facilitators of Intensivists' Adherence to Hyperinsulinemia-Euglycemia Therapy in the Treatment of Calcium Channel Blocker Poisoning

INTRODUCTION

Adherence to poison center (PC) recommendations for the management of calcium channel blocker (CCB) poisoning is inconsistent. This study aimed to identify behaviors that determine adherence to hyperinsulinemia-euglycemia therapy (HIET) for CCB poisoning.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted involving a convenience sample of 18 intensivists. Interview responses were analyzed using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to identify relevant domains influencing physician adherence to HIET. Two independent reviewers performed qualitative content analysis of the interview transcripts to identify beliefs influencing decisions to initiate HIET. Initially, beliefs were classified and frequencies reported as being likely to facilitate, likely to decrease, or unlikely to affect adherence. Subsequently, beliefs were linked to a domain within the TDF. Based on the potential impact on physician behavior and frequency of reported behavior, we selected the most relevant domains likely to influence physician adherence to HIET for CCB poisoning.

RESULTS

Positive beliefs were identified in the following domains: "behavioral regulation" (e.g., algorithm for adjustment of perfusions), "belief about capabilities" (e.g., confidence about being able to manage HIET), "belief about consequences" (e.g., fear of clinical deterioration), and "reinforcement" (e.g., clinical instability). Negative beliefs were identified in the following domains as "nature of behavior" (e.g., preference for vasopressors over HIET) and "environmental context and resources" (e.g., accessing dextrose 50% and increased nurse workload).

CONCLUSION

This qualitative study identified potential behavioral targets for future implementation strategies to address to improve adherence to HIET.

Is Selective Digestive Decontamination Useful for Critically Ill Patients?

In this study we review the rationale for using selective digestive decontamination (SDD) in critically ill patients, and its effects on clinical outcomes and rates of infection with antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms. SDD consists of the application of nonabsorbable antibiotics to the oropharynx and through a nasogastric or nasoenteral tube, in association with a 4-day course of an intravenous third-generation cephalosporin. The enteral component aims at preventing oral and rectal colonization with potentially pathogenic nosocomial aerobic gram-negative bacilli and yeasts while preserving normal protective anaerobic enteral flora. The short-course systemic component aims at eradicating oral endogenous gram-positive bacteria. SDD decreases the risk of nosocomial infections, and reduces by one-quarter the mortality of patients on mechanical ventilation in settings with low prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Evidence from randomized trials suggests that SDD does not increase rates of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms, and may reduce resistance rates to some antibiotics. However, several limitations decrease our confidence on these data, particularly for settings with high baseline rates of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms. Although SDD has a clear potential to improve clinical outcomes of critically patients, its long-term ecologic effects on rates of antimicrobial resistant require appropriate assessment by large multinational cluster randomized trials. Before these results are available, the use of SDD cannot be recommended in most parts of the world, except in settings with very low baseline prevalence of antibiotic resistance.

A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems

Background

Implementing new practices requires changes in the behaviour of relevant actors, and this is facilitated by understanding of the determinants of current and desired behaviours. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was developed by a collaboration of behavioural scientists and implementation researchers who identified theories relevant to implementation and grouped constructs from these theories into domains. The collaboration aimed to provide a comprehensive, theory-informed approach to identify determinants of behaviour. The first version was published in 2005, and a subsequent version following a validation exercise was published in 2012. This guide offers practical guidance for those who wish to apply the TDF to assess implementation problems and support intervention design. It presents a brief rationale for using a theoretical approach to investigate and address implementation problems, summarises the TDF and its development, and describes how to apply the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Examples from the implementation research literature are presented to illustrate relevant methods and practical considerations.

Methods

Researchers from Canada, the UK and Australia attended a 3-day meeting in December 2012 to build an international collaboration among researchers and decision-makers interested in the advancing use of the TDF. The participants were experienced in using the TDF to assess implementation problems, design interventions, and/or understand change processes. This guide is an output of the meeting and also draws on the authors’ collective experience. Examples from the implementation research literature judged by authors to be representative of specific applications of the TDF are included in this guide.

Results

We explain and illustrate methods, with a focus on qualitative approaches, for selecting and specifying target behaviours key to implementation, selecting the study design, deciding the sampling strategy, developing study materials, collecting and analysing data, and reporting findings of TDF-based studies. Areas for development include methods for triangulating data, e.g. from interviews, questionnaires and observation and methods for designing interventions based on TDF-based problem analysis.

Conclusions

We offer this guide to the implementation community to assist in the application of the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Benefits of using the TDF include the provision of a theoretical basis for implementation studies, good coverage of potential reasons for slow diffusion of evidence into practice and a method for progressing from theory-based investigation to intervention.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The ethics of future trials: qualitative analysis of physicians' decision making

BACKGROUND

The decision to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in a field raises ethical as well as scientific issues. From the clinical equipoise literature, future trials are justifiable if there is "honest, professional disagreement in the community of expert practitioners as to the preferred treatment". Empirical data are sparse about how clinicians apply the principles of equipoise to the justification of future RCTs. For example, selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is not widely used in critical care practice despite the strength of the evidence base and therefore provides a unique opportunity to learn how clinicians think about the ethics of further RCTs in critical care.

METHODS

In an international interview study of views of healthcare professionals about SDD, we undertook a secondary analysis of qualitative data collected using a Theoretical Domains Framework of clinical behaviour. We adopted a general descriptive approach to explore how physicians determined whether another RCT of SDD is ethical. Following a constant comparison approach, three investigators reviewed 54 purposively chosen transcripts from three international regions. We interpreted the data using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We grouped participants' responses into four inter-related themes: 1) cultural norms about evidence and practice within healthcare; 2) personal views about what evidence is current or applicable; 3) the interpersonal and relational nature of professional decision making locally; and 4) an a priori commitment to future trials. The analysis also identified several unresolved tensions regarding when a future RCT should be pursued. These tensions focused on a clash between potential benefits to current individual patients and potential future harms to patients more broadly.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that ethical decision making about future RCTs in the field of SDD does not rely strongly on appeals to evidence, even when the quality of the evidence is reasonably high. Rather, "extra-evidential" reasons, including social, professional, and relational factors, seem to influence opinions regarding the ethics of future trials. Further work is required to see if these conclusions are applicable to other clinical topics and settings.

Observational study of current use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in UK critical care units

BACKGROUND

Evidence supporting selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is reasonably strong. We set out to determine use in UK critical care units and to compare patient outcomes between units that do and those that do not use SDD.

METHODS

A total of 250 UK general critical care units were surveyed. Case mix, outcomes, and lengths of stay for admissions to SDD units (with and without an i.v. component) and non-SDD units were compared using data from the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme database.

RESULTS

A response was received from all the 250 critical care units surveyed. Of these, 13 (5.2%) reported using SDD on some or all admissions, and of these, 3 reported using an i.v. component. Data on 284,690 admissions (April 2008-March 2011) from units reporting to the ICNARC Case Mix Programme (CMP) were included in the analyses. Admissions to SDD (n=196) and non-SDD (n=9) units were a similar case mix with similar infection rates and average lengths of stay in the unit and hospital. There was no difference in risk-adjusted unit or hospital mortality. The rate of unit-acquired infections in blood was significantly lower in SDD units using an i.v. component.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of SDD in UK critical care is very low. The rate of unit-acquired infections in blood was significantly lower in SDD units using an i.v. component, but did not translate into a difference in acute hospital mortality or length of stay. There is a need to better understand the barriers to adoption of SDD into clinical practice and such work is underway.

Selective digestive or oropharyngeal decontamination and topical oropharyngeal chlorhexidine for prevention of death in general intensive care: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect on mortality of selective digestive decontamination, selective oropharyngeal decontamination, and topical oropharyngeal chlorhexidine in adult patients in general intensive care units and to compare these interventions with each other in a network meta-analysis.

DESIGN

Systematic review, conventional meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis. Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched to December 2012. Previous meta-analyses, conference abstracts, and key journals were also searched. We used pairwise meta-analyses to estimate direct evidence from intervention-control trials and a network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to combine direct and indirect evidence.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Prospective randomised controlled trials that recruited adult patients in general intensive care units and studied selective digestive decontamination, selective oropharyngeal decontamination, or oropharyngeal chlorhexidine compared with standard care or placebo.

RESULTS

Selective digestive decontamination had a favourable effect on mortality, with a direct evidence odds ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.84). The direct evidence odds ratio for selective oropharyngeal decontamination was 0.85 (0.74 to 0.97). Chlorhexidine was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 1.25, 1.05 to 1.50). When each intervention was compared with the other, both selective digestive decontamination and selective oropharyngeal decontamination were superior to chlorhexidine. The difference between selective digestive decontamination and selective oropharyngeal decontamination was uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Selective digestive decontamination has a favourable effect on mortality in adult patients in general intensive care units. In these patients, the effect of selective oropharyngeal decontamination is less certain. Both selective digestive decontamination and selective oropharyngeal decontamination are superior to chlorhexidine, and there is a possibility that chlorhexidine is associated with increased mortality.

The views of health care professionals about selective decontamination of the digestive tract: an international, theoretically informed interview study

PURPOSE

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) as a prophylactic intervention improves hospital-acquired infection and survival rates. Uptake of SDD is low and remains controversial. This study applied the theoretical domains framework to assess intensive care unit clinicians' views about SDD in regions with limited or no adoption of SDD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants were health professionals with "decisional authority" for the adoption of SDD. Semistructured interviews were conducted as the first round of a Delphi study. Views about SDD adoption, delivery, and further SDD research were explored. Directed content analysis of interview data identified subthemes, which informed item development for subsequent Delphi rounds. Linguistic features of interview data were also explored.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-one participants provided interview data. Fifty-six subthemes were identified; 46 were common across regions. Beliefs about consequences were the most widely elaborated theme. Linguistic features of how participants discussed SDD included caution expressed when discussing the risks and benefits and words such as "worry," "anxiety," and "fear" when discussing potential antibiotic resistance associated with SDD.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified salient beliefs, barriers, and facilitators to SDD adoption and delivery. What participants said about SDD and the way in which they said it demonstrated the degree of clinical caution, uncertainty, and concern that SDD evokes.

Severe sepsis and septic shock: management and performance improvement

Morbidity and mortality from sepsis remains unacceptably high. Large variability in clinical practice, plus the increasing awareness that certain processes of care associated with improved critical care outcomes, has led to the development of clinical practice guidelines in a variety of areas related to infection and sepsis. The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock were first published in 2004, revised in 2008, and recently revised again and published in 2013. The first part of this manuscript is a summary of the 2013 guidelines with some editorial comment. The second part of the manuscript characterizes hospital based sepsis performance improvement programs and highlights the sepsis bundles from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign as a key component of such a program.

Implementing selective digestive tract decontamination in the intensive care unit: A qualitative analysis of nurse-identified considerations

OBJECTIVE

To describe factors senior critical care nurses identify as being important to address when introducing selective digestive tract decontamination (SDD) in the clinical setting.

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients are at risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). SDD is one strategy shown to prevent VAP and possibly improve survival in the critically ill.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of qualitative data obtained from 20 interviews. An inductive thematic analysis approach was applied to data obtained from senior critical care nurses during phase two of a multi-methods study.

RESULTS

There were four primary considerations identified that should be addressed or considered prior to implementation of SDD. These considerations included education of health care professionals, patient comfort, compatibility of SDD with existing practices, and cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a lack of experience with, or knowledge of SDD, nurses were able to articulate factors that may influence its implementation and delivery. Organizations or researchers considering implementation of SDD should include nurses as key members of the implementation team.

Comparison of four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: an international Delphi study in intensive care settings

OBJECTIVES

Behaviour change interventions often target 'important' beliefs. The literature proposes four methods for assessing importance of attitudinal beliefs: elicitation frequency, importance ratings, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate). We tested congruence between these methods in a Delphi study about selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD). SDD improves infection rates among critically ill patients, yet uptake in intensive care units is low internationally.

METHODS

A Delphi study involved three iterations ('rounds'). Participants were 105 intensive care clinicians in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand. In Round 1, semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit beliefs about delivering SDD. In Rounds 2 and 3, participants completed questionnaires, rating agreement and importance for each belief-statement (9-point Likert scales). Belief importance was assessed using elicitation frequency, mean importance ratings, and prediction of global attitude (Pearson's correlations; beta-weights). Correlations between indices were computed.

RESULTS

Participants generated 14 attitudinal beliefs. Indices had adequate variation (frequencies: 4-94, mean importance ratings: 4.93-8.00, Pearson's correlations: ± 0.09 to ± 0.54, beta-weights: ± 0.01 to ± 0.30). SDD increases antibiotic resistance was the most important belief according to three methods and was ranked second by beta-weights (behind Overall, SDD benefits patients to whom it is delivered). Spearman's correlations were significant for importance ratings with frequencies and correlations. However, other indices were unrelated. The top four beliefs differed according to the measure used.

CONCLUSIONS

Results provided evidence of congruence across three methods for assessing belief importance. Beta-weights were unrelated to other indices, suggesting that they may not be appropriate as the sole method.

STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION

What is already known on this subject? Attitudinal beliefs (specific beliefs about the consequences of performing an action) are key to designing interventions to change intentions and behaviour. The literature reports four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: frequency of elicitation in interviews, importance ratings in questionnaires, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate) of global attitude scores. The congruence between these measures of importance is not known. What does this study add? Four indices of importance were examined in a multi-professional, international study about the use of selective digestive decontamination to prevent infection in intensive care settings. Three indices were correlated with one another. Each method used to assess importance produced a different subset of the most important beliefs. Selection of the most important beliefs should use multiple assessment methods. This evidence suggests that multiple regression approaches may not be appropriate as the sole method for assessing belief importance.

Clinical components and associated behavioural aspects of a complex healthcare intervention: multi-methods study of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critical care

BACKGROUND

This study sought to identify and describe the clinical and behavioural components (e.g. the what, how, when, where and by whom) of 'selective decontamination of the digestive tract' (SDD) as routinely implemented in the care of critically ill patients.

METHODS

Multi-methods study, consisting of semi-structured observations of SDD delivery, interviews with clinicians and documentary analysis, conducted in two ICUs in the UK that routinely deliver SDD. Data were analysed within-site to describe clinical and behavioural SDD components and synthesised across-sites to describe SDD in context.

RESULTS

SDD delivery involved multiple behaviours extending beyond administration of its clinical components. Not all behaviours were specified in relevant clinical documentation. Overall, SDD implementation and delivery included: adoption (i.e. whether to implement SDD), operationalisation (i.e. implementing SDD into practice), provision (i.e. delivery of SDD) and surveillance (i.e. monitoring the ecological effects). Implementation involved organisational, team and individual-level behaviours. Delivery was perceived as easy by individual staff, but displayed features of complexity (including multiple interrelated behaviours, staff and contexts).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to formally outline the full spectrum of clinical and behavioural aspects of SDD. It identified points in the delivery process where complex behaviours occur and outlined how SDD can be interpreted and applied variably in practice. This comprehensive specification allows greater understanding of how this intervention could be implemented in units not currently using it, or replicated in research studies. It also identified strategies required to adopt SDD and to standardise its implementation.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations.

RESULTS

Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of ≤ 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations.

RESULTS

Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) <150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Effect of selective decontamination on antimicrobial resistance in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many meta-analyses have shown reductions in infection rates and mortality associated with the use of selective digestive decontamination (SDD) or selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care units (ICUs). These interventions have not been widely implemented because of concerns that their use could lead to the development of antimicrobial resistance in pathogens. We aimed to assess the effect of SDD and SOD on antimicrobial resistance rates in patients in ICUs.

METHODS

We did a systematic review of the effect of SDD and SOD on the rates of colonisation or infection with antimicrobial-resistant pathogens in patients who were critically ill. We searched for studies using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases, with no limits by language, date of publication, study design, or study quality. We included all studies of selective decontamination that involved prophylactic application of topical non-absorbable antimicrobials to the stomach or oropharynx of patients in ICUs, with or without additional systemic antimicrobials. We excluded studies of interventions that used only antiseptic or biocide agents such as chlorhexidine, unless antimicrobials were also included in the regimen. We used the Mantel-Haenszel model with random effects to calculate pooled odds ratios.

FINDINGS

We analysed 64 unique studies of SDD and SOD in ICUs, of which 47 were randomised controlled trials and 35 included data for the detection of antimicrobial resistance. When comparing data for patients in intervention groups (those who received SDD or SOD) versus data for those in control groups (who received no intervention), we identified no difference in the prevalence of colonisation or infection with Gram-positive antimicrobial-resistant pathogens of interest, including meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (odds ratio 1·46, 95% CI 0·90-2·37) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (0·63, 0·39-1·02). Among Gram-negative bacilli, we detected no difference in aminoglycoside-resistance (0·73, 0·51-1·05) or fluoroquinolone-resistance (0·52, 0·16-1·68), but we did detect a reduction in polymyxin-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (0·58, 0·46-0·72) and third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (0·33, 0·20-0·52) in recipients of selective decontamination compared with those who received no intervention.

INTERPRETATION

We detected no relation between the use of SDD or SOD and the development of antimicrobial-resistance in pathogens in patients in the ICU, suggesting that the perceived risk of long-term harm related to selective decontamination cannot be justified by available data. However, our study indicates that the effect of decontamination on ICU-level antimicrobial resistance rates is understudied. We recommend that future research includes a non-crossover, cluster randomised controlled trial to assess long-term ICU-level changes in resistance rates.

FUNDING

None.

Theories of behaviour change synthesised into a set of theoretical groupings: introducing a thematic series on the theoretical domains framework

Behaviour change is key to increasing the uptake of evidence into healthcare practice. Designing behaviour-change interventions first requires problem analysis, ideally informed by theory. Yet the large number of partly overlapping theories of behaviour makes it difficult to select the most appropriate theory. The need for an overarching theoretical framework of behaviour change was addressed in research in which 128 explanatory constructs from 33 theories of behaviour were identified and grouped. The resulting Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) appears to be a helpful basis for investigating implementation problems. Research groups in several countries have conducted TDF-based studies. It seems timely to bring together the experience of these teams in a thematic series to demonstrate further applications and to report key developments. This overview article describes the TDF, provides a brief critique of the framework, and introduces this thematic series.

In a brief review to assess the extent of TDF-based research, we identified 133 papers that cite the framework. Of these, 17 used the TDF as the basis for empirical studies to explore health professionals’ behaviour. The identified papers provide evidence of the impact of the TDF on implementation research. Two major strengths of the framework are its theoretical coverage and its capacity to elicit beliefs that could signify key mediators of behaviour change. The TDF provides a useful conceptual basis for assessing implementation problems, designing interventions to enhance healthcare practice, and understanding behaviour-change processes. We discuss limitations and research challenges and introduce papers in this series.