The ABCDEF Bundle in Critical Care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Marra A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5351776 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The ABCDEF Bundle in Critical Care.
Marra Annachiara A Ely E Wesley EW Pandharipande Pratik P PP Patel Mayur B MB
Critical care clinics 20170401 2
The ABCDEF bundle represents an evidence-based guide for clinicians to approach the organizational changes needed for optimizing intensive care unit patient recovery and outcomes. This article reviews the core evidence and features behind the ABCDEF bundle. The bundle has individual components that are clearly defined, flexible to implement, and help empower multidisciplinary clinicians and families in the shared care of the critically ill. The ABCDEF bundle helps guide well-rounded patient care ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe ABCDEF bundle (Assess, prevent, and manage pain and Delirium; Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia/sedation; Early mobility; and Family engagement) improves intensive care unit outcomes, but adoption into practice is poor.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of quality improvement collaborative participation on ABCDEF bundle performance.MethodsThis interrupted time series analysis included 20 months of bundle performance data from 15 226 adults admitted to 68 US intensive care units. Segmented regression models were used to quantify complete and individual bundle element performance changes over time and compare performance patterns before (6 months) and after (14 months) collaborative initiation.ResultsComplete bundle performance rates were very low at baseline (<4%) but increased to 12% by the end. Complete bundle performance increased by 2 percentage points (SE, 0.9; P = .06) immediately after collaborative initiation. Each subsequent month was associated with an increase of 0.6 percentage points (SE, 0.2; P = .04). Performance rates increased significantly immediately after initiation for pain assessment (7.6% [SE, 2.0%], P = .002), sedation assessment (9.1% [SE, 3.7%], P = .02), and family engagement (7.8% [SE, 3%], P = .02) and then increased monthly at the same speed as the trend in the baseline period. Performance rates were lowest for spontaneous awakening/breathing trials and early mobility.ConclusionsQuality improvement collaborative participation resulted in clinically meaningful, but small and variable, improvements in bundle performance. Opportunities remain to improve adoption of sedation, mechanical ventilation, and early mobility practices.
| S-EPMC9972543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introducción El objetivo de este estudio fue describir el conocimiento y el uso reportado del paquete de medidas ABCDEF en las unidades de cuidados intensivos (UCI) de adultos de la República Argentina durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2. Métodos Se realizó un estudio cualitativo a través de una encuesta nacional dirigida a profesionales de la salud. Resultados Se recibieron 396 cuestionarios completos de profesionales de 21 provincias argentinas y la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. El 66% de los participantes contestaron que conocen el paquete y lo aplican con diferentes grados de implementación. El 42,9% informó que usa al menos una herramienta validada para evaluar el dolor. Más de la mitad de los encuestados afirman realizar vacaciones de sedación y pruebas de ventilación espontánea diariamente. Las escalas de sedación fueron utilizadas por el 66,6% de los participantes en forma rutinaria. El 62% utiliza herramientas validadas para la detección de delirium. Respecto de la movilización temprana y ejercicio de los pacientes, el 91,8% de los profesionales entrevistados comunicaron que realizan rehabilitación neuromuscular en su UCI. Finalmente, solamente el 6,8% informó que su unidad estaba abierta las 24 horas para las visitas familiares. Las principales barreras a la aplicación del paquete de medidas fueron los recursos humanos y hospitalarios limitados, la resistencia al cambio, la falta de información y el aislamiento por COVID-19. Conclusión El 66% de los participantes contestó que conoce el paquete y lo aplica con diferentes grados de implementación.
| S-EPMC8685181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesABCDEF bundle implementation in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is associated with dose dependent improvements in patient outcomes. The objective was to compare nurse attitudes about the ABCDEF bundle to self-reported adherence to bundle components.Research methodology/designCross-sectional study.SettingNurses providing direct patient care in 28 ICUs within 18 hospitals across the United States.Main outcome measures53-item survey of attitudes and practice of the ABCDEF bundle components was administered between November 2011 and August 2015 (n = 1661).ResultsWe did not find clinically significant correlations between nurse attitudes and adherence to Awakening trials, Breathing trials, and sedation protocol adherence (rs = 0.05-0.28) or sedation plan discussion during rounds and Awakening and Breathing trial Coordination (rs = 0.19). Delirium is more likely to be discussed during rounds when ICU physicians and nurse managers facilitate delirium reduction (rs = 0.27-0.36). Early mobilization is more likely to occur when ICU physicians, nurse managers, staffing, equipment, and the ICU environment facilitate early mobility (rs = 0.36-0.47). Physician leadership had the strongest correlation with reporting an ICU environment that facilitates ABCDEF bundle implementation (rs = 0.63-0.74).ConclusionsNurse attitudes about bundle implementation did not predict bundle adherence. Nurse manager and physician leadership played a large role in creating a supportive ICU environment.
| S-EPMC8011280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ICU Liberation (ABCDEF) Bundle can help to improve care and outcomes for ICU patients, but bundle implementation is far from universal. Understanding how ICU organizational characteristics influence bundle implementation could inform quality improvement efforts. We surveyed all hospitals in Michigan with adult ICUs to determine whether organizational characteristics were associated with bundle implementation and to determine the level of agreement between ICU physician and nurse leaders around ICU organizational characteristics and bundle implementation.DesignWe surveyed ICU physician and nurse leaders, assessing their safety culture, ICU team collaboration, and work environment. Using logistic and linear regression models, we compared these organizational characteristics to bundle element implementation, and also compared physician and nurse leaders' perceptions about organizational characteristics and bundle implementation.SettingAll (n = 72) acute care hospitals with adult ICUs in Michigan.SubjectsICU physician and nurse leader pairs from each hospital's main ICU.InterventionsWe developed, pilot-tested, and deployed an electronic survey to all subjects over a 3 month period in 2016.ResultsResults from 73 surveys (28 physicians, 45 nurses, 60% hospital response rate) demonstrated significant variation in hospital and ICU size and type, organizational characteristics, and physician/nurse perceptions of ICU organization and bundle implementation. We found that a robust safety culture and collaborative work environment that uses checklists to facilitate team communication are strongly associated with bundle implementation. There is also a significant dose-response effect between safety culture, a collaborative work environment, and overall bundle implementation.ConclusionsWe identified several specific ICU practices that can facilitate ABCDEF Bundle implementation. Our results can be used to develop effective bundle implementation strategies that leverage safety culture, interprofessional collaboration, and routine checklist use in ICUs to improve bundle implementation and performance.
| S-EPMC7437774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate implementation of evidence-based and supportive cares in ICUs, such as the ABCDEF, nutrition therapy, and ICU diary, for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection in ICUs and their association with ICU clinical practice and setting.DesignA worldwide, 2-day point prevalence study.SettingThe study was carried out on June 3, 2020, and July 1, 2020. A total of 212 ICUs in 38 countries participated. Clinicians in each participating ICU completed web-based online surveys.PatientsThe ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsThe implementation rate for the elements of the ABCDEF bundle, other supportive ICU care measures, and implementation-associated structures were investigated. Data were collected for 262 patients, of whom 47.3% underwent mechanical ventilation and 4.6% were treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Each element was implemented for the following percentages of patients: elements A (regular pain assessment), 45%; B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials), 28%; C (regular sedation assessment), 52%; D (regular delirium assessment), 35%; E (early mobility and exercise), 47%; and F (family engagement and empowerment), 16%. The implementation of element E was 4% for patients on mechanical ventilation and 8% for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Supportive care, such as protein provision throughout the ICU stay (under 1.2 g/kg for more than 50% of the patients) and introduction of ICU diary (25%), was infrequent. Implementation rates of elements A and D were higher in ICUs with specific protocols and fewer ICU beds exclusively for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Element E was implemented at a higher rate in ICUs that had more ICU beds assigned for them.ConclusionsThis point prevalence study showed low implementation of the ABCDEF bundle. Specific protocols and the number of ICU beds reserved for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection might be key factors for delivering appropriate supportive care.
| S-EPMC7994035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate process metrics and outcomes after implementation of the "Rethinking Critical Care" ICU care bundle in a community setting.Retrospective interrupted time-series analysis.Three hospitals in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated healthcare delivery system.ICU patients admitted between January 1, 2009, and August 30, 2013.Implementation of the Rethinking Critical Care ICU care bundle which is designed to reduce potentially preventable complications by focusing on the management of delirium, sedation, mechanical ventilation, mobility, ambulation, and coordinated care. Rethinking Critical Care implementation occurred in a staggered fashion between October 2011 and November 2012.We measured implementation metrics based on electronic medical record data and evaluated the impact of implementation on mortality with multivariable regression models for 24,886 first ICU episodes in 19,872 patients. After implementation, some process metrics (e.g., ventilation start and stop times) were achieved at high rates, whereas others (e.g., ambulation distance), available late in the study period, showed steep increases in compliance. Unadjusted mortality decreased from 12.3% to 10.9% (p < 0.01) before and after implementation, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for hospital mortality after implementation was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.73-0.99) and for 30-day mortality was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.97) compared with before implementation. However, the mortality rate trends were not significantly different before and after Rethinking Critical Care implementation. The mean duration of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay also did not demonstrate incrementally greater declines after implementation.Rethinking Critical Care implementation was associated with changes in practice and a 12-15% reduction in the odds of short-term mortality. However, these findings may represent an evaluation of changes in practices and outcomes still in the midimplementation phase and cannot be directly attributed to the elements of bundle implementation.
| S-EPMC4764399 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDecades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care.DesignProspective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative.Setting68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period.Patients15,226 adults with at least one ICU day.InterventionsWe defined ABCDEF bundle performance (our main exposure) in two ways: 1) complete performance (patient received every eligible bundle element on any given day) and 2) proportional performance (percentage of eligible bundle elements performed on any given day). We explored the association between complete and proportional ABCDEF bundle performance and three sets of outcomes: patient-related (mortality, ICU and hospital discharge), symptom-related (mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium, pain, restraint use), and system-related (ICU readmission, discharge destination). All models were adjusted for a minimum of 18 a priori determined potential confounders.Measurements and resultsComplete ABCDEF bundle performance was associated with lower likelihood of seven outcomes: hospital death within 7 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.17-0.62), next-day mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.28; CI, 0.22-0.36), coma (AOR, 0.35; CI, 0.22-0.56), delirium (AOR, 0.60; CI, 0.49-0.72), physical restraint use (AOR, 0.37; CI, 0.30-0.46), ICU readmission (AOR, 0.54; CI, 0.37-0.79), and discharge to a facility other than home (AOR, 0.64; CI, 0.51-0.80). There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001).ConclusionsABCDEF bundle performance showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes including survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma, delirium, restraint-free care, ICU readmissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition.
| S-EPMC6298815 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHospital mortality for critically ill patients has decreased significantly throughout the developed world over the past two decades, attributable to improvements in the quality of intensive care, advances in critical care medicine and technologies that provide long-term multiorgan support. However, the long-term outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors is emerging as a real issue. Cognitive and physical impairments suffered by ICU survivors are common including profound weakness, pain and delirium which are inextricably linked. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of the Assess, prevent and manage pain; Both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; Choice of sedation and analgesia; Delirium: assess, prevent and manage; Early mobility and exercise; Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF) bundle in reducing ICU-related short-term and long-term consequences of critical illness through a randomised controlled trial (RCT).Methods and analysisThe study will be a single-centre, prospective RCT. A total of 150 participants will be recruited and randomised to either receive the ABCDEF bundle protocol or non-protocolised standard care for the duration of the participant's admission in the ICU. The primary outcome is delirium status measured using the Confusion Assessment Measure for ICU (CAM-ICU). Secondary outcomes include physical function measured by the Functional Independence Measure and quality of life measured by the European Quality of Life five dimensions, five-level questionnaire. A mixed-method process evaluation will contribute to understanding the experience of health teams who implement the ABCDEF bundle into practice.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was provided by the Metro South Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (EC00167) and the Griffith University's HREC prior to study commencement.Study results will be disseminated by presentations at conferences and via publications to peer-review journals.Trial registration numberACTRN12620000736943; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC8286762 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo measure how the ICU Liberation Bundle (aka ABCDEF Bundle or the Bundle) affected clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated (MV) adult ICU patients, as well as bundle sustainability and spread across a healthcare system.DesignWe conducted a multicenter, prospective, cohort observational study to measure bundle performance versus patient outcomes and sustainability in 11 adult ICUs at six community hospitals. We then prospectively measured bundle spread and performance across the other 28 hospitals of the healthcare system.SettingA large community-based healthcare system.PatientsIn 11 study ICUs, we enrolled 1,914 MV patients (baseline n = 925, bundle performance/outcomes n = 989), 3,019 non-MV patients (baseline n = 1,323, bundle performance/outcomes n = 1,696), and 2,332 MV patients (bundle sustainability). We enrolled 9,717 MV ICU patients in the other 28 hospitals to assess bundle spread.InterventionsWe used evidence-based strategies to implement the bundle in all 34 hospitals.Measurements and main resultsWe compared outcomes for the 12-month baseline and bundle performance periods. Bundle implementation reduced ICU length of stay (LOS) by 0.5 days (p = 0.02), MV duration by 0.6 days (p = 0.01), and ICU LOS greater than or equal to 7 days by 18.1% (p < 0.01). Performance period bundle compliance was compared with the preceding 3-month baseline compliance period. Compliance with pain management and spontaneous awakening trial (SAT) and spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) remained high, and reintubation rates remained low. Sedation assessments increased (p < 0.01) and benzodiazepine sedation use decreased (p < 0.01). Delirium assessments increased (p = 0.02) and delirium prevalence decreased (p = 0.02). Patient mobilization and ICU family engagement did not significantly improve. Bundle element sustainability varied. SAT/SBT compliance dropped by nearly half, benzodiazepine use remained low, sedation and delirium monitoring and management remained high, and patient mobility and family engagement remained low. Bundle compliance in ICUs across the healthcare system exceeded that of study ICUs.ConclusionsThe ICU Liberation Bundle improves outcomes in MV adult ICU patients. Evidence-based implementation strategies improve bundle performance, spread, and sustainability across large healthcare systems.
| S-EPMC10798758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Data regarding delivery of evidence-based care to critically ill patients in Intensive Care Units (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial but lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation rate of the ABCDEF bundle, which is a collection of six evidence-based ICU care initiatives which are strongly recommended to be incorporated into clinical practice, and ICU diaries for patients with and without COVID-19 infections in ICUs, and to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on implementation of each element of the bundle and independent associated factors. Methods: A world-wide 1-day point prevalence study investigated the delivery of the ABCDEF bundle and ICU diary to patients without or with COVID-19 infections on 27 January 2021 via an online questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with adjustment for patient demographics evaluated the impact of COVID-19 and identified factors in ICU administrative structures and policies independently associated with delivery. Results: From 54 countries and 135 ICUs, 1,229 patients were eligible, and 607 (49%) had COVID-19 infections. Implementation rates were: entire bundle (without COVID-19: 0% and with COVID-19: 1%), Element A (regular pain assessment: 64 and 55%), Element B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials: 17 and 10%), Element C (regular sedation assessment: 45 and 61%), Element D (regular delirium assessment: 39 and 35%), Element E (exercise: 22 and 25%), Element F (family engagement/empowerment: 16 and 30%), and ICU diary (17 and 21%). The presence of COVID-19 was not associated with failure to implement individual elements. Independently associated factors for each element in common between the two groups included presence of a specific written protocol, application of a target/goal, and tele-ICU management. A lower income status country and a 3:1 nurse-patient ratio were significantly associated with non-implementation of elements A, C, and D, while a lower income status country was also associated with implementation of element F. Conclusions: Regardless of COVID-19 infection status, implementation rates for the ABCDEF bundle, for each element individually and an ICU diary were extremely low for patients without and with COVID-19 infections during the pandemic. Strategies to facilitate implementation of and adherence to the complete ABCDEF bundle should be optimized and addressed based on unit-specific barriers and facilitators.
| S-EPMC8581178 | biostudies-literature