BackgroundMemory gaps in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors are associated with psychiatric disorders. The ICU diaries improve the patient’s factual memory of the ICU, but it is not clear if they reduce the incidence of psychiatric disorders in patients and relatives after hospital discharge. The aim of this study is to evaluate the literature on the effect of ICU diaries for patients admitted in ICU and their relatives.MethodsTwo authors independently searched the online databases PubMed, OVID, Embase, EBSCO host, and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019. Studies were included if the intervention group (ICU diary) was compared with a group with no diaries and the sample was comprised patients ≥ 18 years old admitted in the ICU for more than 24 h and their relatives. Randomized clinical trials, observational studies, letter with original data, and abstracts were included, irrespective of the language. The search was not limited by any specific outcome. Review articles, commentaries, editorials, and studies without a control group were excluded. Structured tools were used to assess the methodological quality (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I)” for cohort studies and the “Cochrane Risk of Bias tool” for included RCTs and before/after studies). A random-effects model was employed considering the anticipated variability between the studies.ResultsSeven hundred eighty-five titles were identified for screening. Two additional studies were selected after a reference search, and after a full-text review, a total of 12 studies were included. When pooling the results, ICU diary was associated with lower risk of depression (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23–0.75) and better quality of life (10.3 points higher in SF-36 general health score, 95% CI 0.79–19.8), without a decrease in anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For the relatives receiving an ICU diary, there was no difference in the incidence of PTSD, anxiety, or depression.Conclusion and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of ICU diaries to reduce the risk of depression and preserve the quality of life of patients after ICU admission. ICU diaries do not seem to have any beneficial effect on the relatives of the patients.Trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42019136639

Background Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them. Methods This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently. Conclusions Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.

No abstract

Objective: To identify in mild head injured children the major differences between those with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) 15 and GCS 13/14. Method: Cross-sectional study accomplished through information derived from medical records of mild head injured children presented in the emergency room of a Pediatric Trauma Centre level I, between May 2007 and May 2008. results: 1888 patients were included. The mean age was 7.6±5.4 years; 93.7% had GCS 15; among children with GCS 13/14, 46.2% (p<0.001) suffered multiple traumas and 52.1% (p<0.001) had abnormal cranial computed tomography (CCT) scan. In those with GCS 13/14, neurosurgery was performed in 6.7% and 9.2% (p=0.001) had neurological disabilities. conclusion: Those with GCS 13/14 had frequently association with multiple traumas, abnormalities in CCT scan, require of neurosurgical procedure and Intensive Care Unit admission. We must be cautious in classified children with GCS 13/14 as mild head trauma victims.

Our study suggests COI reporting to have been unintuitive to most investigators and unreliable before ICMJE statements, and that strong incentives are needed to implement adequate reporting of COI.

Persistence of fever or tachypnea up to the second day of amoxicillin treatment is predictive of radiographically diagnosed pneumonia among children with non-severe lower respiratory tract diseases.

Objective: We aimed to identify which set of components differentiates the ICU diaries that were effective in reducing psychologic symptoms after critical illness. Data Sources: We searched the online databases MEDLINE, OVID, Embase, and EBSCOhost from inception to December 2021. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the ICU diary were included, irrespective of the language, with samples of adult patients (≥ 18 yr old) and/or their relatives hospitalized in an ICU for more than 24 hours. Two qualitative syntheses on patients’ and healthcare providers’ perceptions on the ICU diary were included. Data Extraction: Four findings were extracted from the qualitative synthesis of patients’ perspectives on the ICU diary. From the RCTs, we extracted the components of the ICU diary and whether the patients were ventilated for at least 3 days. We reported the outcome as effective or not, regardless of the psychiatric symptoms and diagnostic tools used for evaluation. We built a matrix in which each column represented a recommendation for an intervention component derived from the qualitative review, and each row represented whether the components of an individual trial’s intervention matched any of the recommendations. Data Synthesis: Eight RCTs were included in the final analysis. The sample of five studies consisted of patients under mechanical ventilation (MV) for at least 3 days. Two were positive trials. Three RCTs included family members, and two of those were positive trials. CONCLUSIONS: For patients under MV for at least 3 days, the ICU diaries that were effective in preventing psychiatric symptoms after critical illness were written by the ICU staff, delivered after hospital discharge, and read with a healthcare professional in order to better understand the diary and the ICU stay. For family members, the presence of photographs was the only characteristic identified a successful ICU diary.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to summarize the current qualitative evidence on patients’ experiences of reading the ICU diaries. DATA SOURCES: We searched the online databases PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, and EBSCO host from inception to July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All studies that presented any qualitative findings regarding patients’ experiences of reading an ICU diary were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Study design, location, publication year, data collection method, and mode, all qualitative themes identified and reported, and participant quotations, when appropriate. We also extracted data regarding the diary structure, when available. A thematic synthesis approach was used to analyze and synthesize qualitative data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventeen studies were analyzed. Most patients reported positive experiences with the ICU diary, such as understanding what they survived during critical illness, better understanding the process of recovery, gaining coherence of nightmares and delusional memories, realizing the importance of the presence of family and loved ones during ICU stay, and humanizing healthcare professionals that helped them survive critical illness. Patients also reported which components of the diary were important for their recovery, such as the presence of photographs and reading the diary with a healthcare professional, allowing the improvement of the concept of the ICU diary. Conclusion: This qualitative synthesis shows that patients recommend having an ICU diary, enlightening benefits such as better coping with the slow recovery from critical illness, strengthening family ties, and humanizing the ICU staff. It also identifies characteristics of the diary valued by the patients, in order to standardize the ICU diary according to their perspectives, and allowing future comparability between randomized controlled trials.