BACKGROUND: Prognostic assessments of the mortality of critically ill patients are frequently performed in daily clinical practice and provide prognostic guidance in treatment decisions. In contrast to several sophisticated tools, prognostic estimations made by healthcare providers are always available and accessible, are performed daily, and might have an additive value to guide clinical decision-making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of students', nurses', and physicians' estimations and the association of their combined estimations with in-hospital mortality and 6-month follow-up.METHODS: The Simple Observational Critical Care Studies is a prospective observational single-center study in a tertiary teaching hospital in the Netherlands. All patients acutely admitted to the intensive care unit were included. Within 3 h of admission to the intensive care unit, a medical or nursing student, a nurse, and a physician independently predicted in-hospital and 6-month mortality. Logistic regression was used to assess the associations between predictions and the actual outcome; the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) was calculated to estimate the discriminative accuracy of the students, nurses, and physicians.RESULTS: In 827 out of 1,010 patients, in-hospital mortality rates were predicted to be 11%, 15%, and 17% by medical students, nurses, and physicians, respectively. The estimations of students, nurses, and physicians were all associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 5.8, 95% CI [3.7, 9.2], OR 4.7, 95% CI [3.0, 7.3], and OR 7.7 95% CI [4.7, 12.8], respectively). Discriminative accuracy was moderate for all students, nurses, and physicians (between 0.58 and 0.68). When more estimations were of non-survival, the odds of non-survival increased (OR 2.4 95% CI [1.9, 3.1]) per additional estimate, AUROC 0.70 (0.65, 0.76). For 6-month mortality predictions, similar results were observed.CONCLUSIONS: Based on the initial examination, students, nurses, and physicians can only moderately predict in-hospital and 6-month mortality in critically ill patients. Combined estimations led to more accurate predictions and may serve as an example of the benefit of multidisciplinary clinical care and future research efforts.
DOCUMENT
PURPOSE: The objectives of this review are to summarize the current practices and major recent advances in critical care nutrition and metabolism, review common beliefs that have been contradicted by recent trials, highlight key remaining areas of uncertainty, and suggest recommendations for the top 10 studies/trials to be done in the next 10 years.METHODS: Recent literature was reviewed and developments and knowledge gaps were summarized. The panel identified candidate topics for future trials in critical care nutrition and metabolism. Then, members of the panel rated each one of the topics using a grading system (0-4). Potential studies were ranked on the basis of average score.RESULTS: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have challenged several concepts, including the notion that energy expenditure must be met universally in all critically ill patients during the acute phase of critical illness, the routine monitoring of gastric residual volume, and the value of immune-modulating nutrition. The optimal protein dose combined with standardized active and passive mobilization during the acute phase and post-acute phase of critical illness were the top ranked studies for the next 10 years. Nutritional assessment, nutritional strategies in critically obese patients, and the effects of continuous versus intermittent enteral nutrition were also among the highest-ranking studies.CONCLUSIONS: Priorities for clinical research in the field of nutritional management of critically ill patients were suggested, with the prospect that different nutritional interventions targeted to the appropriate patient population will be examined for their effect on facilitating recovery and improving survival in adequately powered and properly designed studies, probably in conjunction with physical activity.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop practical recommendations for physiotherapy for survivors of critical illness after hospital discharge. Methods: A modified Delphi consensus study was performed. A scoping literature review formed the basis for three Delphi rounds. The first round was used to gather input from the panel to finalize the survey for the next two rounds in which the panel was asked to rank each of the statements on an ordinal scale with the objective to reach consensus. Consensus was defined as a SIQR of ≤ 0.5. Ten Dutch panelists participated in this study: three primary care physiotherapists, four intensive care physiotherapists, one occupational therapist, one ICU-nurse and one former ICU-patient. All involved professionals have treated survivors of critical illness. Our study was performed in parallel with an international Delphi study with hospital-based health-care professionals and researchers. Results: After three Delphi rounds, consensus was reached on 95.5% of the statements. This resulted in practical recommendations for physiotherapy for critical illness survivors in the primary care setting. The panel agreed that the handover should include information on 14 items. Physiotherapy treatment goals should be directed toward improvement of aerobic capacity, physical functioning, activities in daily living, muscle strength, respiratory and pulmonary function, fatigue, pain, and health-related quality of life. Physiotherapy measurements and interventions to improve these outcomes are suggested. Conclusion: This study adds to the knowledge on post-ICU physiotherapy with practical recommendations supporting clinical decision-making in the treatment of survivors of critical illness after hospital discharge.
DOCUMENT
