Characterizing proximity and transfers of deceased organ donors to donor care units in the United States

Some United States organ procurement organizations transfer deceased organ donors to donor care units (DCUs) for recovery procedures. We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data, from April 2017 to June 2021, to describe the proximity of adult deceased donors after brain death to DCUs and understand the impact of donor service area (DSA) boundaries on transfer efficiency. Among 19 109 donors (56.1% of the cohort) in 25 DSAs with DCUs, a majority (14 593 [76.4%]) were in hospitals within a 2-hour drive. In areas with DCUs detectable in the study data set, a minority of donors (3582 of 11 532 [31.1%]) were transferred to a DCU; transfer rates varied between DSAs (median, 27.7%, range, 4.0%-96.5%). Median hospital-to-DCU driving times were not meaningfully shorter among transferred donors (50 vs 51 minutes for not transferred, P < .001). When DSA boundaries were ignored, 3241 cohort donors (9.5%) without current DCU access were managed in hospitals within 2 hours of a DCU and thus potentially eligible for transfer. In summary, approximately half of United States deceased donors after brain death are managed in hospitals in DSAs with a DCU. Transfer of donors between DSAs may increase DCU utilization and improve system efficiency.

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.

Understanding irresponsible use of intensive care unit resources in the USA

Use of intensive care unit (ICU) resources in the USA far outpaces that of other countries. This increased use is not accompanied by superior clinical outcomes and is at times discordant with patient desires. This Series paper seeks to identify major drivers of ICU resource use in the USA, and to offer steps towards better aligning ICU resource use with clinical needs and patient preferences. After considering several factors, such as organisational, ethical, and economic factors, we suggest that there are four intersecting drivers of irresponsible use of ICU resources in the USA: first, excess ICU bed capacity and a scarcity of data to understand which patients that truly benefit from ICU compared with ward care; second, clinicians misinterpreting the goals and means of patient autonomy; third, an extreme fear of rationing by the general public; and fourth, fee-for-service driven use of advanced medical technologies and procedures that beget ICU expansion.