No abstract

Background: With a growing demand for endoscopic services, the role of anesthesiologists in endoscopy units must be reassessed. The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes in non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol (AAP) during routine endoscopy. Methods:We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL and the grey literature for studies comparing NAAP and AAP. Primary outcomes included endoscopy-and sedation-related complications. Secondary outcomes included measures of endoscopy quality and of patient and endoscopist satisfaction. We reported treatment effects using random-effects models. Nonanesthesiologists administered lower propofol dosages than anesthesiologists (mean difference −61.79, 95% CI −114.46 to −9.12; 3443 patients), and their patients more commonly experienced awareness with recall (OR 19.99, 95% CI 7.88 to 50.76; 2090 patients). However, NAAP neither compromised patient willingness to repeat the procedure (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.83; 2367 patients) nor lengthened total procedure time (mean difference −0.08, 95% CI −3.51 to 3.34; 2367 patients). Results Conclusion:Endoscopists may safely administer propofol without compromising procedural quality in patients classified as ASA I or II undergoing routine endoscopy. The results of this meta-analysis are limited by a lack of available high-quality studies. Further, large-scale studies are needed for definitive conclusions.Contexte : Étant donné que les services endoscopiques sont de plus en plus demandés, le rôle des anesthésiologistes dans les unités d'endoscopie doit être réévalué. Le but de cette étude était de comparer les résultats cliniques chez les patients selon que le propofol était administré par des non-anesthésiologistes (NAAP, pour nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol) ou par des anesthésiologistes (AAP, pour anesthesiologist-administered propofol).Méthodes : Nous avons procédé à une revue systématique des réseaux MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science et CENTRAL et de la littérature grise pour recenser les études ayant comparé les méthodes NAAP et AAP. Les paramètres principaux incluaient les complications liées à l'endoscopie et à la sédation, et les paramètres secondaires incluaient les mesures de la qualité de l'endoscopie et la satisfaction des patients et des endoscopistes. Nous avons fait état des effets des traitements à l'aide de modèles à effets aléatoires.

BackgroundDelirium is a common manifestation in the intensive care unit (ICU) that is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Guidelines suggested appropriate management of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) is crucial in improving patient outcomes. However, the practice of PAD assessment and management in community hospitals is unclear and the mechanisms contributing to the potential care gap are unknown.ObjectivesThis quality improvement initiative aimed to review the practice of PAD assessment and management in a community medical-surgical ICU (MSICU) and to explore the community MSICU nurses’ perceived comfort and satisfaction with PAD management in order to understand the mechanisms of the observed care gap and to inform subsequent quality improvement interventions.MethodsWe prospectively collected basic demographic data, clinical information and daily data on PAD process measures including PAD assessment and target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score ordered by intensivists on all patients admitted to a community MSICU for >24 hours over a 20-week period. All ICU nurses in the same community MSICU were invited to participate in an anonymous survey.ResultsWe collected data on a total of 1101 patient-days (PD). 653 PD (59%), 861 PD (78%) and 439 PD (39%) had PAD assessment performed, respectively. Target RASS was ordered by the intensivists on 515 PD (47%). Our nurse survey revealed that 88%, 85% and 41% of nurses were comfortable with PAD assessment, respectively.ConclusionsDelirium assessment was not routinely performed. This is partly explained by the discomfort nurses felt towards conducting delirium assessment. Our results suggested that improvement in nurse comfort with delirium assessment and management is needed in the community MSICU setting.

BackgroundIn 2013, the Society of Critical Care Medicine published a revised version of the ICU Pain, Agitation, and Delirium (PAD) guidelines. Immobility and sleep were subsequently added in 2018. Despite the well-established advantages of implementing these guidelines, adoption and adherence remain suboptimal. This is especially true in community settings, where PAD assessment is performed less often, and the implementation of PAD guidelines has not yet been studied. The purpose of this prospective interventional study is to evaluate the effect of a multifaceted nurse engagement intervention on PAD assessment in a community intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsAll patients admitted to our community ICU for over 24 hours were included. A 20-week baseline audit was performed, followed by the intervention, and a 20-week postintervention audit. The intervention consisted of a survey, focus groups and education sessions. Primary outcomes included rates of daily PAD assessment using validated tools.ResultsThere were improvements in the number of patients with at least one assessment per day of pain (67.5% vs 59.3%, p=0.04), agitation (93.1% vs 78.7%, p<0.001) and delirium (54.2% vs 39.4%, p<0.001), and the number of patients with target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale ordered (63.1% vs 46.8%, p=0.002). There was a decrease in the rate of physical restraint use (10.0% vs 30.9%, p<0.001) and no change in self-extubation rate (0.9% vs 2.5%, p=0.2).ConclusionThe implementation of a multifaceted nurse engagement intervention has the potential to improve rates of PAD assessment in community ICUs. Screening rates in our ICU remain suboptimal despite these improvements. We plan to implement multidisciplinary interventions targeting physicians, nurses and families to close the observed care gap.

Introduction: Volumetric and density parameters measured from computed tomography scans were investigated for evaluating treatment response of nonspine bone lesions following stereotactic body radiation therapy. Methods: Twenty-three patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy to nonspine bone metastases with pre- and post-treatment radiological follow-up with computed tomography imaging were identified in a retrospective review. An expert radiologist classified 26 lesions by type (lytic, sclerotic) and by response. Two independent radiation oncologists created separate contours of the bone and soft tissue lesion volumes. Density and volume were assessed relative to baseline values. Results: For bone-only lesions, all lesions designated as local control decreased in volume or remained within 20% of baseline volumes. Lytic lesions classified as progressive disease exhibited much larger volume increases. Lytic bone lesions showed indications of remineralization with some exhibiting immediate increases in density (1-6 months) and others decreasing initially then increasing back toward baseline between 7 and 12 months. The majority of sclerotic lesions, all classified as local control, decreased slightly in both volume and density. Lesions with both soft tissue and boney involvement resulted in contradictory results when employing both radiological and size parameters for assessing treatment response. Classification was dominated by changes in soft tissue volume, despite associated volume or density changes in the corresponding boney lesion. In contrast, when soft tissue volume changes were minimal (<20% increase), classification appeared to be related primarily to density changes and not bone volume. Conclusions: Volume and density changes show promise as quantitative parameters for classifying treatment responses of nonspine osseous lesions. Further work is required for clarifying how these metrics can be applied to lesions with both boney and soft tissue components.

received fractionated SBRT for definitive treatment of their metastases. Prescription doses were 30-54 Gy in 3-5 fractions, with mean and median BED 10 of 75.8Gy and 60 Gy, respectively (range 48-151.2 Gy). Treatment related toxicities were minimal, with grade 1 or 2 nausea in 12 patients, no grade 3 GI toxicity, and no renal toxicity. Local control (LC) was achieved at the treated site in 25 patients (83.3%), with a median LFFS not reached (mean of 41 months). Median PFS was 12.3 months and median OS was 19.7 months. Histology and maximum tumor size did not significantly impact oncologic outcomes. Treatment with immunotherapy showed a non-significant trend towards improving OS (pZ0.138), with no impact on LC or PFS. BED 10 above 80 Gy showed a non-significant trend towards improved LC (pZ0.177), without improvement in OS or PFS. Conclusion: Fractionated SBRT provides excellent tumor control with minimal toxicity in peri-adrenal and adrenal gland metastases. Dose schedules with BED 10 above 80 Gy should be considered for definitive therapy to provide optimal local control. With modern systemic treatments improving survival outcomes in patients with oligometastatic disease, this treatment approach warrants further investigation in appropriately selected patients.

Background Endoscopy units across Canada are being challenged to meet the growing demand for procedures despite limited resources, highlighting the need to optimize endoscopy unit efficiency. Earlier studies have found that non-procedural factors, such as room turnover, represent an ideal target to improve efficiency. Aims The objective of this research project was to identify practices that will improve efficiency for routine outpatient gastrointestinal (GI) procedures at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC). There were 2 sub-aims: 1) to understand practices at Toronto hospitals that shorten room turnover time and 2) to describe the variation in room turnover time at SHSC. Methods Sub-aim #1: A survey of endoscopy units at five other Toronto hospitals was completed. Questions were designed to gain a better understanding of routine practices and any initiatives undertaken to improve room turnover efficiency. Sub-aim #2: Median room turnover time from April 2018 to March 2019, defined as ‘patient out’ to ‘patient in’, was reported in an anonymized fashion for the following categories: 1) by endoscopist, 2) by nurse, and 3) by unique endoscopist-nurse pair. Only data from routine outpatient endoscopic procedures (e.g. colonoscopy, gastroscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy) were included. In order to evaluate turnover times by endoscopist-nurse pair, consecutive cases not performed by the same pair were excluded. Procedures affected by patient- and transportation-related delays were also excluded. Results Of the five centers surveyed, three allocated 5 minutes for turnover and two allocated 10 minutes. All centers reported tracking turnover time and four centers reported undertaking initiatives to decrease turnover time such as involving a flow team, hiring team attendants, and sharing performance data. Over the 12-month period, 2504 routine outpatient GI endoscopic procedures were performed at SHSC, with 803 cases meeting inclusion criteria. Median turnover time for the unit was 6 minutes, ranging from 5 to 9 minutes across endoscopists, 5 to 7 minutes across nurses, and 3 to 10 minutes across unique endoscopist-nurse pairs (Figure 1). Efficiency of endoscopist-nurse pairs did not correlate with the number of cases performed as a pair over the 12-month period. Conclusions Endoscopy room turnover times at SHSC are similar to those reported by other local centers, with important variation across endoscopists and nurses. The next phase of this study will involve directly observing each of the most and least efficient individuals and pairs and recording common practices. It is anticipated that these findings will enable us to identify efficient practices that should be incorporated into standard operating procedures and training for endoscopy room personnel. Funding Agencies None

No abstract