Dataset Information

Use of therapeutic caffeine in acute care postoperative and critical care settings: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Caffeine is the most utilised psychoactive drug worldwide. However, caffeine withdrawal and the therapeutic use of caffeine in intensive care and in the perioperative period have not been well summarised. Our objective was to conduct a scoping review of caffeine withdrawal and use in the intensive care unit (ICU) and postoperative patients.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies investigating the effects of caffeine withdrawal or administration in ICU patients and in the perioperative period. Areas of recent systematic review such as pain or post-dural puncture headache were not included in this review. Studies were limited to adults.

Results

Of 2268 articles screened, 26 were included and grouped into two themes of caffeine use in in the perioperative period and in the ICU. Caffeine withdrawal in the postoperative period increases the incidence of headache, which can be effectively treated prophylactically with perioperative caffeine. There were no studies investigating caffeine withdrawal or effect on sleep wake cycles, daytime somnolence, or delirium in the intensive care setting. Administration of caffeine results in faster emergence from sedation and anaesthesia, particularly in individuals who are at high risk of post-extubation complications. There has only been one study investigating caffeine administration to facilitate post-anaesthetic emergence in ICU. Caffeine administration appears to be safe in moderate doses in the perioperative period and in the intensive care setting.

Conclusions

Although caffeine is widely used, there is a paucity of studies investigating withdrawal or therapeutic effects in patients admitted to ICU and further novel studies are a priority.

SUBMITTER: Bright M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8011218 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this scoping review is to provide a synthesis of the available literature on implementation science in critical care settings. Specifically, we aimed to identify the evidence-based practices selected for implementation, the frequency and type of implementation strategies used to foster change, and the process and clinical outcomes associated with implementation.Data sourcesA librarian-assisted search was performed using three electronic databases.Study selectionArticles that reported outcomes aimed at disseminating, implementing, or sustaining an evidence-based intervention or practice, used established implementation strategies, and were conducted in a critical care unit were included.Data extractionTwo reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text of articles to determine eligibility. Data extraction was performed using customized fields established a priori within a systematic review software system.Data synthesisOf 1,707 citations, 82 met eligibility criteria. Studies included prospective research investigations, quality improvement projects, and implementation science trials. The most common practices investigated were use of a ventilator-associated pneumonia bundle, nutritional support protocols, and the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium Monitoring/Management, and Early Exercise/Mobility bundle. A variety of implementation strategies were used to facilitate evidence adoption, most commonly educational meetings, auditing and feedback, developing tools, and use of local opinion leaders. The majority of studies (76/82, 93%) reported using more than one implementation strategy. Few studies specifically used implementation science designs and frameworks to systematically evaluate both implementation and clinical outcomes.ConclusionsThe field of critical care has experienced slow but steady gains in the number of investigations specifically guided by implementation science. However, given the exponential growth of evidence-based practices and guidelines in this same period, much work remains to critically evaluate the most effective mechanisms to integrate and sustain these practices across diverse critical care settings and teams.

Project description:BackgroundAcute-care interventions that identify patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), initiate treatment, and link patients to community-based services, have proliferated in recent years. Yet, much is unknown about the specific strategies being used to support continuity of care from emergency department (ED) or inpatient hospital settings to community-based SUD treatment. In this scoping review, we synthesize the existing literature on patient transition interventions, and form an initial typology of reported strategies.MethodsWe searched Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO for peer-reviewed articles published between 2000-2021 that studied interventions linking SUD patients from ED or inpatient hospital settings to community-based SUD services. Eligible articles measured at least one post-discharge treatment outcome and included a description of the strategy used to promote linkage to community care. Detailed information was extracted on the components of the transition strategies and a thematic coding process was used to categorize strategies into a typology based on shared characteristics. Facilitators and barriers to transitions of care were synthesized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsForty-five articles met inclusion criteria. 62% included ED interventions and 44% inpatient interventions. The majority focused on patients with opioid (71%) followed by alcohol (31%) use disorder. The transition strategies reported across studies were heterogeneous and often not well described. An initial typology of ten transition strategies, including five pre-and five post-discharge transition strategies is proposed. The most common strategy was scheduling an appointment with a community-based treatment provider prior to discharge. A range of facilitators and barriers were described, which can inform efforts to improve hospital-to-community transitions of care.ConclusionsStrategies to support transitions from acute-care to community-based SUD services, although critical for ensuring continuity of care, vary greatly across interventions and are inconsistently measured and described. More research is needed to classify SUD care transition strategies, understand their components, and explore which lead to the best patient outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesA scoping review was conducted to answer the question: How is critical care nursing (CCN) performed in low-income countries and lower middle-income countries (LICs/LMICs)?DesignScoping review guided by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.Data sourcesSix electronic databases and five web-based resources were systematically searched to identify relevant literature published between 2010 and April 2021.Review methodsThe search results received two-stage screening: (1) title and abstract (2) full-text screening. For sources of evidence to progress, agreement needed to be reached by two reviewers. Data were extracted and cross-checked. Data were analysed, sorted by themes and mapped to region and country.ResultsLiterature was reported across five georegions. Nurses with a range formal and informal training were identified as providing critical care. Availability of staff was frequently reported as a problem. No reports provided a comprehensive description of CCN in LICs/LMICs. However, a variety of nursing practices and non-clinical responsibilities were highlighted. Availability of equipment to fulfil the nursing role was widely discussed. Perceptions of inadequate resourcing were common. Undergraduate and postgraduate-level preparation was poorly described but frequently reported. The delivery of short format critical care courses was more fully described. There were reports of educational evaluation, especially regarding internationally supported initiatives.ConclusionsDespite commonalities, CCN is unique to regional and socioeconomic contexts. Nurses work within a complex team, yet the structure and skill levels of such teams will vary according to patient population, resources and treatments available. Therefore, a universal definition of the CCN role in LIC/LMIC health systems is likely unhelpful. Research to elucidate current assets, capacity and needs of nurses providing critical care in specific LIC/LMIC contexts is needed. Outputs from such research would be invaluable in supporting contextually appropriate capacity development programmes.

Project description:BackgroundPreprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle.MethodsA scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022).Results379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities).ConclusionsPreprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.

Project description:BackgroundRestricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate.ResultsOf 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%).ConclusionsPatients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals.Trial registrationThe review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.