Background Earlier tPA treatment for acute ischemic stroke increases efficacy, prompting national efforts to reduce door-to-needle times (DNTs). We utilized lean process improvement methodology to develop a streamlined IV tPA protocol. Methods In early 2011, a multi-disciplinary team analyzed the steps required to treat acute ischemic stroke patients with IV tPA, utilizing value stream analysis (VSA). We directly compared the tPA-treated patients in the “pre-VSA” epoch to the “post-VSA” epoch with regard to baseline characteristics, protocol metrics, and clinical outcomes. Results The VSA revealed several tPA protocol inefficiencies: routing of patients to room, then to CT, then back to room; serial processing of work flow; and delays in waiting for lab results. On 3/1/2011, a new protocol incorporated changes to minimize delays: routing patients directly to head CT prior to patient room, utilizing parallel process work-flow, and implementing point-of-care labs. In the pre-and post-VSA epochs, 132 and 87 patients were treated with IV tPA, respectively. Compared to pre-VSA, DNTs and percent of patients treated ≤60 minutes from hospital arrival were improved in the post-VSA epoch: 60 min vs. 39 min (p<0.0001) and 52% vs. 78% (p<0.0001), respectively, with no change in symptomatic hemorrhage rate. Conclusions Lean process improvement methodology can expedite time-dependent stroke care, without compromising safety.

Objectives To characterize the use of mechanical ventilation in the emergency department (ED), with respect to ventilator settings, monitoring, and titration; and to determine the incidence of progression to acute lung injury (ALI) after admission, examining the influence of factors present in the ED on ALI progression. Methods This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with severe sepsis and septic shock (June 2005 to May 2010), presenting to an academic ED with an annual census of >95,000 patients. All patients in the study (n = 251) were analyzed for characterization of mechanical ventilation use in the ED. The primary outcome variable of interest was the incidence of ALI progression after ICU admission from the ED and risk factors present in the ED associated with this outcome. Secondary analyses included ALI present in the ED and clinical outcomes comparing all patients progressing to ALI versus no ALI. To assess predictors of progression to ALI, statistically significant variables in univariable analyses at a p ≤ 0.10 level were candidates for inclusion in a bidirectional, stepwise, multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results Lung-protective ventilation was used in 68 patients (27.1%), and did not differ based on ALI status. Delivered tidal volume was highly variable, with a median tidal volume delivered of 8.8 mL/kg ideal body weight (IBW) (IQR 7.8 to 10.0), and a range of 5.2 to 14.6 mL/kg IBW. Sixty-nine patients (27.5%) in the entire cohort progressed to ALI after admission to the hospital, with a mean onset of 2.1 days (SD ± 1 day). Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that a higher body mass index, higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED vasopressor use were associated with progression to ALI. There was no association between ED ventilator settings and progression to ALI. Compared to patients who did not progress to ALI, patients progressing to ALI after admission from the ED had an increase in mechanical ventilator duration, vasopressor dependence, and hospital length of stay. Conclusions Lung-protective ventilation is uncommon in the ED, regardless of ALI status. Given the frequency of ALI in the ED, the progression shortly after ICU admission, and the clinical consequences of this syndrome, the effect of ED-based interventions aimed at reducing the sequelae of ALI should be investigated further.

Critically ill patients are frequently treated with empirical antibiotic therapy, including vancomycin and β-lactams. Recent evidence suggests an increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients who received a combination of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam (VPT) compared with patients who received vancomycin alone or vancomycin in combination with cefepime (VC) or meropenem (VM), but most studies were conducted predominately in the non-critically ill population. A retrospective cohort study that included 2,492 patients was conducted in the intensive care units of a large university hospital with the primary outcome being the development of any AKI. The rates of any AKI, as defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines, were 39.3% for VPT patients, 24.2% for VC patients, and 23.5% for VM patients (P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Similarly, the incidences of stage 2 and stage 3 AKI were also significantly higher for VPT patients than for the patients in the other groups. The rates of stage 2 and stage 3 AKI, respectively, were 15% and 6.6% for VPT patients, 5.8% and 1.8% for VC patients, and 6.6% and 1.3% for VM patients (P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). In multivariate analysis, the use of vancomycin in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam was found to be an independent predictor of AKI (odds ratio [OR], 2.161; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.620 to 2.883). In conclusion, critically ill patients receiving the combination of VPT had the highest incidence of AKI compared to critically ill patients receiving either VC or VM.

Background Emergency department (ED) dosing of vancomycin and its effect on outcomes has not been examined. Study objective To describe current vancomycin dosing practices for ED patients, focusing on patient factors associated with administration, dosing accuracy based on patient body weight, and clinical outcomes. Methods Single center, retrospective cohort study of vancomycin administered in the ED over 18 months in an academic, tertiary care ED. Data were collected on 4,656 patients. Data were analyzed using a generalized estimating equations GEE) model to account for multiple doses being administered to the same patient. Results The ED dose was continued, unchanged, in 2,560 admitted patients (83.8%). The correct dose was given 980 times (22.1%), 3,143 doses (70.7%) were under dosed, and 318 were overdosed (7.2%). Increasing weight was associated with under dosing (adjusted odds ratio 1.52 per 10 kg body weight, p < 0.001). Doses of vancomycin >20 mg/kg had longer hospital length of stay, p = 0.005, were more likely to spend ≥ 3 days in the hospital, OR 1.49 (1.12, 1.98, p = 0.006), and to die, OR 1.88 (1.22, 2.90, p = 0.004). Conclusion In this largest study to date examining ED vancomycin dosing, vancomycin was commonly given. Dosing outside the recommended range was frequent, and especially prevalent in patients with a higher bodyweight. The ED dose of vancomycin was frequently continued as an inpatient, regardless of dosing accuracy. There is significant room for improvement in dosing accuracy and indication. Vancomycin dosing in the ED may also affect clinical outcomes.

This single intravenous bag protocol is effective and well tolerated, and there is infrequent interruption of therapy. The overall rate of administration errors is similar to that in reports on the FDA regimen; thus, our protocol may be an acceptable alternative.