Dataset Information

Clinical stakeholders' opinions on the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill patients in intensive care units: an international Delphi study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is a prophylactic antibiotic regimen that is not widely used in practice. We aimed to describe the opinions of key 'stakeholders' about the validity of the existing evidence base, likely consequences of implementation, relative importance of their opinions in influencing overall practice, likely barriers to implementation and perceptions of the requirement for further research to inform the decision about whether to embark on a further large randomised controlled trial.

Methods

This was a Delphi study informed by comprehensive framework of possible determinants of health professionals' behaviour to study Critical Care practice in four countries. There were four key stakeholder participant groups including ICU physicians, pharmacists, clinical leads, and clinical microbiologists/ infectious disease physicians. Round one comprised participant interviews and Rounds two and three were online questionnaires using Delphi method.

Results

In this study, 141 participants were recruited of whom 82% were retained. Participants rated themselves as knowledgeable about SDD. Antibiotic resistance was identified as the most important issue. SDD was seen as a low clinical priority but few participants reported strong opposition. There was moderate agreement that research to date has not adequately addressed concerns about antibiotic resistance and lacks generalizability. Participants indicated equipoise with regard to benefits and harms of SDD, and indicated strong support for a further randomised trial.

Conclusions

Clinicians have clinical equipoise about the effectiveness of SDD. Future research requires longer follow up to assess antibiotic resistance as well as greater validity/generalizability to provide definitive answers on the effectiveness of decontamination and effects on antibiotic resistance. SDD was regarded as not being a high clinical priority, which may limit future trial participation. These results have identified that further large randomised controlled trial of SDD in critical care is both warranted and appropriate.

SUBMITTER: Cuthbertson BH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4056354 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRecent evidence suggests that choice of fluid used for resuscitation may influence mortality in critically ill patients.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study in 391 intensive care units across 25 countries to describe the types of fluids administered during resuscitation episodes. We used generalized estimating equations to examine the association between patient, prescriber and geographic factors and the type of fluid administered (classified as crystalloid, colloid or blood products).ResultsDuring the 24-hour study period, 1,955 of 5,274 (37.1%) patients received resuscitation fluid during 4,488 resuscitation episodes. The main indications for administering crystalloid or colloid were impaired perfusion (1,526/3,419 (44.6%) of episodes), or to correct abnormal vital signs (1,189/3,419 (34.8%)). Overall, colloid was administered to more patients (1,234 (23.4%) versus 782 (14.8%)) and during more episodes (2,173 (48.4%) versus 1,468 (32.7%)) than crystalloid. After adjusting for patient and prescriber characteristics, practice varied significantly between countries with country being a strong independent determinant of the type of fluid prescribed. Compared to Canada where crystalloid, colloid and blood products were administered in 35.5%, 40.6% and 28.3% of resuscitation episodes respectively, odds ratios for the prescription of crystalloid in China, Great Britain and New Zealand were 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.69), 0.18 (0.10 to 0.32) and 3.43 (1.71 to 6.84) respectively; odds ratios for the prescription of colloid in China, Great Britain and New Zealand were 1.72 (1.20 to 2.47), 4.72 (2.99 to 7.44) and 0.39 (0.21 to 0.74) respectively. In contrast, choice of fluid was not influenced by measures of illness severity (for example, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score).ConclusionsAdministration of resuscitation fluid is a common intervention in intensive care units and choice of fluid varies markedly between countries. Although colloid solutions are more expensive and may possibly be harmful in some patients, they were administered to more patients and during more resuscitation episodes than crystalloids were.

Project description:IntroductionUse of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care patients has been controversial for years. Through regular questionnaires we determined expectations concerning SDD (effectiveness) and experience with SDD and SOD (workload and patient friendliness), as perceived by nurses and physicians.MethodsA survey was embedded in a group-randomized, controlled, cross-over multicenter study in the Netherlands in which, during three 6-month periods, SDD, SOD or standard care was used in random order. At the end of each study period, all nurses and physicians from participating intensive care units received study questionnaires.ResultsIn all, 1024 (71%) of 1450 questionnaires were returned by nurses and 253 (82%) of 307 by physicians. Expectations that SDD improved patient outcome increased from 71% and 77% of respondents after the first two study periods to 82% at the end of the study (P = 0.004), with comparable trends among nurses and physicians. Nurses considered SDD to impose a higher workload (median 5.0, on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high)) than SOD (median 4.0) and standard care (median 2.0). Both SDD and SOD were considered less patient friendly than standard care (medians 4.0, 4.0 and 6.0, respectively). According to physicians, SDD had a higher workload (median 5.5) than SOD (median 5.0), which in turn was higher than standard care (median 2.5). Furthermore, physicians graded patient friendliness of standard care (median 8.0) higher than that of SDD and SOD (both median 6.0).ConclusionsAlthough perceived effectiveness of SDD increased as the trial proceeded, both among physicians and nurses, SOD and SDD were, as compared to standard care, considered to increase workload and to reduce patient friendliness. Therefore, education about the importance of oral care and on the effects of SDD and SOD on patient outcomes will be important when implementing these strategies.Trial registrationISRCTN35176830.