Project description:The high number of patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus requiring care for ARDS puts sedation in the critical care unit (CCU) to the edge. Depth of sedation has evolved over the last 40 years (no-sedation, deep sedation, daily emergence, minimal sedation, etc.). Most guidelines now recommend determining the depth of sedation and minimizing the use of benzodiazepines and opioids. The broader use of alpha-2 adrenergic agonists ('alpha-2 agonists') led to sedation regimens beginning at admission to the CCU that contrast with hypnotics+opioids ("conventional" sedation), with major consequences for cognition, ventilation and circulatory performance. The same doses of alpha-2 agonists used for 'cooperative' sedation (ataraxia, analgognosia) elicit no respiratory depression but modify the autonomic nervous system (cardiac parasympathetic activation, attenuation of excessive cardiac and vasomotor sympathetic activity). Alpha-2 agonists should be selected only in patients who benefit from their effects ('personalized' indications, as opposed to a 'one size fits all' approach). Then, titration to effect is required, especially in the setting of systemic hypotension and/or hypovolemia. Since no general guidelines exist for the use of alpha-2 agonists for CCU sedation, our clinical experience is summarized for the benefit of physicians in clinical situations in which a recommendation might never exist (refractory delirium tremens; unstable, hypovolemic, hypotensive patients, etc.). Because the physiology of alpha-2 receptors and the pharmacology of alpha-2 agonists lead to personalized indications, some details are offered. Since interactions between conventional sedatives and alpha-2 agonists have received little attention, these interactions are addressed. Within the existing guidelines for CCU sedation, this article could facilitate the use of alpha-2 agonists as effective and safe sedation while awaiting large, multicentre trials and more evidence-based medicine.

Project description:Accumulating evidence shows that ultrasound (US) guidance improves effectiveness and safety of central venous catheter (CVC) placement. Several international guidelines therefore recommend the use of US for placement of CVCs. However, surveys show that the landmark-based technique is still widely used, while the percentage of physicians using US is increasing less than expected. The goal of this study was to investigate current practice for central venous catheterization in anaesthesiology and intensive care in the Netherlands, identify barriers for further implementation of US guidance and to evaluate whether personality traits are associated with the choice of technique. We conducted a web-based national survey, distributed among members of the Dutch societies of anaesthesiology (NVA) and intensive care (NVIC). The survey contained questions regarding physician and hospital characteristics, frequency of US use and reasons for use or non-use, as well as the NEO-FFI-3, a validated, translated questionnaire to characterize personality traits according to the 'Big Five' concept. Response rate was 22% (506/2291), of which 400 had also the personality questionnaire complete. Ultrasound guidance was used always or almost always in 68%; barriers for US use were working in a non-academic non-teaching hospital, providing cardiac anaesthesia and more years of physician experience. Reasons for not using US were perceived lack of benefit, increased procedure time, lack of US equipment and fear of loss of landmark technique skills. 13% of respondents had never experienced a complication during CVC placement, and 67% knew of a complication occurring the past year at their department. Ultrasound was thought not to be able to prevent the complication in half of these cases. Of the personality traits, only neuroticism and extraversion showed a minor positive association with US guidance. A majority of anaesthesiologists and intensivists uses US guidance for CVC placement, but a significant proportion of physicians still prefers the landmark technique. Most arguments from respondents against US guidance can be challenged. Personality traits most likely do not play a major role in the acceptance of US guidance for central venous catheterization. A potential intervention to increase US use could be formalizing local hospital policies mandating compliance with US guidance. Future research can perhaps focus on cognitive biases that currently limit more widespread use of US guidance.

Project description:BackgroundMental ill-health in health professionals, including doctors, is a global and growing concern. The existing literature on interventions that offer support, advice and/or treatment to sick doctors has not yet been synthesised in a way that considers the complexity and heterogeneity of the interventions, and the many dimensions of the problem. We (1) reviewed interventions to tackle doctors' and medical students' mental ill-health and its impacts on the clinical workforce and patient care-drawing on diverse literature sources and engaging iteratively with diverse stakeholder perspectives-and (2) produced recommendations that support the tailoring, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of contextually sensitive strategies to tackle mental ill-health and its impacts.MethodsRealist literature review consistent with the RAMESES quality and reporting standards. Sources for inclusion were identified through bibliographic database searches supplemented by purposive searches-resulting also from engagement with stakeholders. Data were extracted from included articles and subjected to realist analysis to identify (i) mechanisms causing mental ill-health in doctors and medical students and relevant contexts or circumstances when these mechanisms were likely to be 'triggered' and (ii) 'guiding principles' and features underpinning the interventions and recommendations discussed mostly in policy document, reviews and commentaries.ResultsOne hundred seventy-nine records were included. Most were from the USA (45%) and were published since 2009 (74%). The analysis showed that doctors were more likely to experience mental ill-health when they felt isolated or unable to do their job and when they feared repercussions of help-seeking. Healthy staff were necessary for excellent patient care. Interventions emphasising relationships and belonging were more likely to promote wellbeing. Interventions creating a people-focussed working culture, balancing positive/negative performance and acknowledging positive/negative aspects of a medical career helped doctors to thrive. The way that interventions were implemented seemed critically important. Doctors and medical students needed to have confidence in an intervention for the intervention to be effective.ConclusionsSuccessful interventions to tackle doctors' and students' mental ill-health are likely to be multidimensional and multilevel and involve multiple stakeholders. Evaluating and improving existing interventions is likely to be more effective than developing new ones. Our evidence synthesis provides a basis on which to do this.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42017069870. Research project webpage http://sites.exeter.ac.uk/cup/.

Dataset Information

Dutch doctors are given guidance on sedation.

Publications

Dutch doctors are given guidance on sedation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets