Explore the vast range of titles available.

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has posed unprecedented healthcare system challenges, some of which will lead to transformative change. It is obvious to healthcare workers and policymakers alike that an effective critical care surge response must be nested within the overall care delivery model. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted key elements of emergency preparedness. These include having national or regional strategic reserves of personal protective equipment, intensive care unit (ICU) devices, consumables and pharmaceuticals, as well as effective supply chains and efficient utilization protocols. ICUs must also be prepared to accommodate surges of patients and ICU staffing models should allow for fluctuations in demand. Pre-existing ICU triage and end-of-life care principles should be established, implemented and updated. Daily workflow processes should be restructured to include remote connection with multidisciplinary healthcare workers and frequent communication with relatives. The pandemic has also demonstrated the benefits of digital transformation and the value of remote monitoring technologies, such as wireless monitoring. Finally, the pandemic has highlighted the value of pre-existing epidemiological registries and agile randomized controlled platform trials in generating fast, reliable data. The COVID-19 pandemic is a reminder that besides our duty to care, we are committed to improve. By meeting these challenges today, we will be able to provide better care to future patients.

On Mar. 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic. The worldwide spread of COVID-19 represents a profound threat to human health. Patients with COVID-19 present primarily with fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue, and sometimes initially with predominantly gastrointestinal symptoms. A minority of patients progress to severe pneumonia, and about 15% of these patients to critical illness characterized by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is associated with mortality of about 50%. Here, Zhikang Ye et al. have developed an evidence-based guideline that focuses on both patients with nonsevere and severe COVID-19 and, for use of corticosteroids, patients with ARDS.

PurposeProfessional burnout is a multidimensional syndrome comprising emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and diminished sense of personal accomplishment, and is associated with poor staff health and decreased quality of medical care. We investigated burnout prevalence and its associated risk factors among Asian intensive care unit (ICU) physicians and nurses.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of 159 ICUs in 16 Asian countries and regions. The main outcome measure was burnout as assessed by the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey. Multivariate random effects logistic regression analyses of predictors for physician and nurse burnout were performed.ResultsA total of 992 ICU physicians (response rate 76.5%) and 3100 ICU nurses (response rate 63.3%) were studied. Both physicians and nurses had high levels of burnout (50.3% versus 52.0%, P = 0.362). Among countries or regions, burnout rates ranged from 34.6 to 61.5%. Among physicians, religiosity (i.e. having a religious background or belief), years of working in the current department, shift work (versus no shift work) and number of stay-home night calls had a protective effect (negative association) against burnout, while work days per month had a harmful effect (positive association). Among nurses, religiosity and better work-life balance had a protective effect against burnout, while having a bachelor’s degree (compared to having a non-degree qualification) had a harmful effect.ConclusionsA large proportion of Asian ICU physicians and nurses experience professional burnout. Our study results suggest that individual-level interventions could include religious/spiritual practice, and organizational-level interventions could include employing shift-based coverage, stay-home night calls, and regulating the number of work days per month.

Since the advent of critical care in the twentieth century, the core elements that are the foundation for critical care systems, namely to care for critically ill and injured patients and to save lives, have evolved enormously. The past half-century has seen dramatic advancements in diagnostic, organ support, and treatment modalities in critical care, with further improvements now needed to achieve personalized critical care of the highest quality. For critical care to be even higher quality in the future, advancements in the following areas are key: the physical ICU space; the people that care for critically ill patients; the equipment and technologies; the information systems and data; and the research systems that impact critically ill patients and families. With acutely and critically ill patients and their families as the absolute focal point, advancements across these areas will hopefully transform care and outcomes over the coming years.

IntroductionNovel and efficient healthcare approaches are needed to better serve increasingly older chronic disease patients. Many effective integrated chronic disease management strategies have emerged from the primary care sector. However, in many Asian and developing countries, primary care is underdeveloped, and patients prefer secondary-based services. The Integrated Generalist-led Hospital (IGH) care model is a new approach, which may be better suited for chronic disease patients in the local context.Methods and analysisA hybrid type I study on the effectiveness and implementation of the IGH care model will be conducted. Implementation evaluation will be informed by the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with staff, a staff survey, patient interviews, clinical outcomes and cost data. Clinical outcomes include the length of stay, readmission, emergency room visit rate and mortality. Clinical outcomes will be summarised and compared with a propensity-matched ‘usual care’ group (derived from the general medicine ward(s) at a separate hospital). The Kaplan-Meier approach will be used to estimate time until death and time until first readmission (both within 30 days of discharge) and time until discharge. Multivariate regression models will be used to investigate the association between the care model and occurrence of readmission, emergency room visit and death, all within 30 days of discharge. Qualitative data will be analysed using a thematic analysis method. Qualitative and quantitative data will also be coded according to the five domains of the CFIR.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was reviewed and approved by the National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board (NHG DSRB 2019/00308). Results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations. Findings will also be discussed with key stakeholders through local dissemination events.

Purpose To compare the attitudes of physicians towards withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in intensive care units (ICUs) in low-middle-income Asian countries and regions with those in high-income ones, and to explore differences in the role of families and surrogates, legal risks, and financial considerations between these countries and regions. Methods Questionnaire study conducted in May–December 2012 on 847 physicians from 255 ICUs in 10 low-middle-income countries and regions according to the World Bank’s classification, and 618 physicians from 211 ICUs in six high-income countries and regions. Results After we accounted for personal, ICU, and hospital characteristics on multivariable analyses using generalised linear mixed models, physicians from low-middle-income countries and regions were less likely to limit cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, vasopressors and inotropes, tracheostomy and haemodialysis than those from high-income countries and regions. They were more likely to involve families in end-of-life care discussions and to perceive legal risks with limitation of life-sustaining treatments and do-not-resuscitate orders. Nonetheless, they were also more likely to accede to families’ requests to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in a patient with an otherwise reasonable chance of survival on financial grounds in a case scenario (adjusted odds ratio 5.05, 95 % confidence interval 2.69–9.51, P  < 0.001). Conclusions Significant differences in ICU physicians’ self-reported practice of limiting life-sustaining treatments, the role of families and surrogates, perception of legal risks and financial considerations exist between low-middle-income and high-income Asian countries and regions.

Guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) advocate regular influenza vaccination, which has been shown to reduce exacerbations. However, influenza vaccination rates remain low. This quality improvement project was initiated to help improve influenza vaccination rates in a tertiary hospital. All patients with COPD in the airway program (TAP) in the National University Hospital at the end of 2013 were recruited. The interventions were implemented in 2014; thus, population was stratified into the pre-intervention group and post-intervention group. Those who died in 2014 were excluded. They were (1) patient education posters in the clinics on the need for regular influenza vaccination, (2) direct interventions by physicians, and (3) intervention by the nurses when vaccinations were neglected. Physicians were made aware of previous vaccination rates, vaccination card reminders were placed in the clinics, and a new electronic healthcare record system (EHR) was implemented. The patients were followed up till the end of 2015 or until death. When an influenza vaccination was administered, the patients were asked which of the interventions led to the vaccination. A questionnaire was delivered to the physicians to determine the interventions that led to any change in vaccination prescription practices. The pre-intervention influenza vaccination rate was low at 47.7%. The post-intervention influenza vaccination rate improved to 80.7% with the multi-pronged approach. Physicians initiated the majority of vaccinations (87.9%), while nurses helped intervene in a further 12.1%. Physicians' vaccination prescription practices changed as a result of self-awareness of low vaccination rates, vaccination card reminders, and the new EHR. Patient education made minimal impact. This project demonstrates that with regular audits to track progress and several easy-to-implement interventions, improving influenza vaccination rates is an achievable goal.

Sedative and analgesic practices in intensive care units (ICUs) are frequently based on anesthesia regimes but do not take account of the important patient related factors. Pharmacologic properties of sedatives and analgesics change when used as continuous infusions in ICU compared to bolus or short-term infusions during anesthesia. In a prospective observational cohort study, we investigated the association between patient related factors and sedatives/analgesics doses in patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) and their association with cessation of sedation/analgesia. We included patients expected to receive MV for at least 24 hours and excluded those with difficulty in assessing the depth of sedation. We collected data for the first 72 hours or until extubation, whichever occurred first. Multivariate analysis of variance, multivariate regression as well as logistic regression were used. The final cohort (N = 576) was predominantly male (64%) with mean (SD) age 61.7 (15.6) years, weight 63.4 (18.2) Kg, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 28.2 (8) and 30% hospital mortality. Increasing age was associated with reduced propofol and fentanyl doses requirements, adjusted to the weight (p<0.001). Factors associated with higher propofol and fentanyl doses were vasopressor use (Relative mean difference (RMD) propofol 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28-1.90); fentanyl 1.48 (1.25-1.76) and central venous line placement (CVL, RMD propofol 1.64 (1.15-2.33); fentanyl 1.41 (1.03-1.91). Male gender was also associated with higher propofol dose (RMD 1.27 (1.06-1.49). Sedation cessation was less likely to occur in restrained patients (Odds Ratio, OR 0.48 (CI 0.30-0.78) or those receiving higher sedative/analgesic doses (OR propofol 0.98 (CI 0.97-0.99); fentanyl 0.99 (CI 0.98-0.997), independent of depth of sedation. In conclusion, increasing age is associated with the use of lower doses of sedative/analgesic in ICU, whereas CVL and vasopressor use were associated with higher doses.

ObjectivesTo compare the accuracy of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) Scores in predicting mortality among intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis in a low-income and middle-income country.DesignA multicentre, cross-sectional study.SettingA total of 15 adult ICUs throughout Vietnam.ParticipantsWe included all patients aged ≥18 years who were admitted to ICUs for sepsis and who were still in ICUs from 00:00 to 23:59 of the specified study days (ie, 9 January, 3 April, 3 July and 9 October of the year 2019).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was hospital all-cause mortality (hospital mortality). We also defined the secondary outcome as all-cause deaths in the ICU (ICU mortality).ResultsOf 252 patients, 40.1% died in hospitals, and 33.3% died in ICUs. SOFA Score (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC): 0.688 (95% CI 0.618 to 0.758); cut-off value≥7.5; PAUROC<0.001) and APACHE II Score (AUROC: 0.689 (95% CI 0.622 to 0.756); cut-off value ≥20.5; PAUROC<0.001) both had a poor discriminatory ability for predicting hospital mortality. However, the discriminatory ability for predicting ICU mortality of SOFA (AUROC: 0.713 (95% CI 0.643 to 0.783); cut-off value≥9.5; PAUROC<0.001) was fair and was better than that of APACHE II Score (AUROC: 0.672 (95% CI 0.603 to 0.742); cut-off value≥18.5; PAUROC<0.001). A SOFA Score≥8 (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.717; 95% CI 1.371 to 5.382) and an APACHE II Score≥21 (AOR: 2.668; 95% CI 1.338 to 5.321) were independently associated with an increased risk of hospital mortality. Additionally, a SOFA Score≥10 (AOR: 2.194; 95% CI 1.017 to 4.735) was an independent predictor of ICU mortality, in contrast to an APACHE II Score≥19, for which this role did not.ConclusionsIn this study, SOFA and APACHE II Scores were worthwhile in predicting mortality among ICU patients with sepsis. However, due to better discrimination for predicting ICU mortality, the SOFA Score was preferable to the APACHE II Score in predicting mortality.Clinical trials registry – India: CTRI/2019/01/016898.