Dataset Information

ABCDEF Bundle and Supportive ICU Practices for Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An International Point Prevalence Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To 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.

Design

A worldwide, 2-day point prevalence study.

Setting

The 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.

Patients

The ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

The 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.

Conclusions

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Liu K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7994035 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

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.

Project description:Objectives:The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has stretched ICU resources in an unprecedented fashion and outstripped personal protective equipment supplies. The combination of a novel disease, resource limitations, and risks to medical personnel health have created new barriers to implementing the ICU Liberation ("A" for Assessment, Prevention, and Manage pain; "B" for Both Spontaneous Awakening Trials and Spontaneous Breathing Trials; "C" for Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; "D" for Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; "E" for Early Mobility and Exercise; and "F" for Family Engagement and Empowerment [ABCDEF]) Bundle, a proven ICU care approach that reduces delirium, shortens mechanical ventilation duration, prevents post-ICU syndrome, and reduces healthcare costs. This narrative review acknowledges barriers and offers strategies to optimize Bundle performance in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Data Sources Study Selection and Data Extraction:The most relevant literature, media reports, and author experiences were assessed for inclusion in this narrative review including PubMed, national newspapers, and critical care/pharmacology textbooks. Data Synthesis:Uncertainty regarding coronavirus disease 2019 clinical course, shifts in attitude, and changes in routine behavior have hindered Bundle use. A domino effect results from: 1) changes to critical care hierarchy, priorities, and ICU team composition; 2) significant personal protective equipment shortages cause; 3) reduced/restricted physical bedside presence favoring; 4) increased depth of sedation and use of neuromuscular blockade; 5) which exacerbate drug shortages; and 6) which require prolonged use of limited ventilator resources. Other identified barriers include manageable knowledge deficits among non-ICU clinicians unfamiliar with the Bundle or among PICU specialists deploying pediatric-based Bundle approaches who are unfamiliar with adult medicine. Both groups have been enlisted to augment the adult ICU work force to meet demand. Strategies were identified to facilitate Bundle performance to liberate patients from the ICU. Conclusions:We acknowledge current challenges that interfere with comprehensive management of critically ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Rapid response to new circumstances precisely requires established safety mechanisms and protocols like the ABCDEF Bundle to increase ICU and ventilator capacity and help survivors maximize recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 as early as possible.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Decades-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. DESIGN:Prospective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative. SETTING:68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period. PATIENTS:15,226 adults with at least one ICU day. INTERVENTIONS:We 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 RESULTS:Complete 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). CONCLUSIONS:ABCDEF 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.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:While most pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 cases are not life threatening, some children have severe disease requiring emergent resuscitative interventions. Resuscitation events present risks to healthcare provider safety and the potential for compromised patient care. Current resuscitation practices and policies for children with suspected/confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 are unknown. DESIGN:Multi-institutional survey regarding inpatient resuscitation practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. SETTING:Internet-based survey. SUBJECTS:U.S. PICU representatives (one per institution) involved in resuscitation system planning and oversight. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Of 130 institutions surveyed, 78 (60%) responded. Forty-eight centers (62%) had admitted coronavirus disease 2019 patients; 26 (33%) reported code team activation for patients with suspected/confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. Sixty-seven respondents (86%) implemented changes to inpatient emergency response systems. The most common changes were as follows: limited number of personnel entering patient rooms (75; 96%), limited resident involvement (71; 91%), and new or refined team roles (74; 95%). New or adapted technology is being used for coronavirus disease 2019 resuscitations in 58 centers (74%). Most institutions (57; 73%) are using enhanced personal protective equipment for all coronavirus disease 2019 resuscitation events; 18 (23%) have personal protective equipment policies dependent on the performance of aerosol generating procedures. Due to coronavirus disease 2019, most respondents are intubating earlier during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (56; 72%), utilizing video laryngoscopy (67; 86%), pausing chest compressions during laryngoscopy (56; 72%), and leaving patients connected to the ventilator during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (56; 72%). Responses were varied regarding airway personnel, prone cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ventilation strategy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation without an airway in place, and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Most institutions (46; 59%) do not have policies regarding limitations of resuscitation efforts in coronavirus disease 2019 patients. CONCLUSIONS:Most U.S. pediatric institutions rapidly adapted their resuscitation systems and practices in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Changes were commonly related to team members and roles, personal protective equipment, and airway and breathing management, reflecting attempts to balance quality resuscitation with healthcare provider safety.