Explore the vast range of titles available.

Poor quality of care is a leading cause of excess morbidity and mortality in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). Improving the quality of healthcare is complex, and requires an interdisciplinary team equipped with the skills to design, implement and analyse setting-relevant improvement interventions. Such capacity is limited in many LMICs. However, training for healthcare workers in quality improvement (QI) methodology without buy-in from multidisciplinary stakeholders and without identifying setting-specific priorities is unlikely to be successful. The Care Quality Improvement Network (CQIN) was established between Network for Improving Critical care Systems and Training (NICST) and University College London Centre for Perioperative Medicine, with the aim of building capacity for research and QI. A two-day international workshop, in collaboration with the College of Surgeons of Sri Lanka, was conducted to address the above deficits. Innovatively, the CQIN adopts a learning health systems (LHS) approach to improving care by leveraging information captured through the NICST electronic multi-centre acute and critical care surveillance platform. Fifty-two delegates from across the CQIN representing clinical, civic and academic healthcare stakeholders from six countries attended the workshop. Mapping of care processes enabled identification of barriers and drivers to the delivery of care and facilitated the selection of feasible QI methods and matrices. Six projects, reflecting key priorities for improving the delivery of acute care in Asia, were collaboratively developed: improving assessment of postoperative pain; optimising sedation in critical care; refining referral of deteriorating patients; reducing surgical site infection after caesarean section; reducing surgical site infection after elective general surgery; and improving provision of timely electrocardiogram recording for patients presenting with signs of acute myocardial infarction. Future project implementation and evaluation will be supported with resources and expertise from the CQIN partners. This LHS approach to building capacity for QI may be of interest to others seeing to improve care in LMICs.

PurposeThe Good Intern Programme (GIP) in Sri Lanka has been implemented to bridge the ’theory to practice gap’ of doctors preparing for their internship. This paper evaluates the impact of a 2-day peer-delivered Acute Care Skills Training (ACST) course as part of the GIP.Study designThe ACST course was developed by an interprofessional faculty, including newly graduated doctors awaiting internship (pre-intern), focusing on the recognition and management of common medical and surgical emergencies. Course delivery was entirely by pre-intern doctors to their peers. Knowledge was evaluated by a pre- and post-course multiple choice test. Participants’ confidence (post-course) and 12 acute care skills (pre- and post-course) were assessed using Likert scale-based questions. A subset of participants provided feedback on the peer learning experience.ResultsSeventeen courses were delivered by a faculty consisting of eight peer trainers over 4 months, training 320 participants. The mean (SD) multiple choice questionnaire score was 71.03 (13.19) pre-course compared with 77.98 (7.7) post-course (p<0.05). Increased overall confidence in managing ward emergencies was reported by 97.2% (n=283) of respondents. Participants rated their post-course skills to be significantly higher (p<0.05) than pre-course in all 12 assessed skills. Extended feedback on the peer learning experience was overwhelmingly positive and 96.5% would recommend the course to a colleague.ConclusionsA peer-delivered ACST course was extremely well received and can improve newly qualified medical graduates’ knowledge, skills and confidence in managing medical and surgical emergencies. This peer-based model may have utility beyond pre-interns and beyond Sri Lanka.

The interleukin-6 receptor blockers tocilizumab and sarilumab were tested against standard care in a randomized trial involving patients newly admitted to the intensive care unit and requiring respiratory or blood-pressure support. The median number of organ support–free days was 10 with tocilizumab, 11 with sarilumab, and 0 with standard care.

Curriculum integration, in theory and practice, transcends subject-area and disciplinary identifications without abandoning them. The goal is integrative activities that use knowledge (to pursue new meanings) without regard for subject or discipline lines. As boundaries disappear, curriculum integration may engage knowledge not easily ascribed to particular disciplines. (26 references) (MLH)

In a randomized trial, patients with severe Covid-19 were assigned to receive either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. At 21 days, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation did not improve hospital survival or the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support.

In a randomized trial, patients with moderately severe Covid-19 were assigned to receive either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation or usual-care thromboprophylaxis. At 21 days, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation resulted in a higher probability of survival until hospital discharge without organ support.

Issue Title: ESICM LIVES 2015

Issue Title: ESICM LIVES 2015

Purpose To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. Results We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir ( n  = 255), hydroxychloroquine ( n  = 50), combination therapy ( n  = 27) or control ( n  = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (– 1 to 15), 0 (– 1 to 9) and—1 (– 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (– 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). Conclusion Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.