Objective To assess the knowledge and use of the ABCDEF bundle to implement the Pain, Agitation, Delirium (PAD) guidelines. Design Worldwide On-line Survey. Setting Intensive care. Intervention A cross-sectional online survey using the Delphi method was administered to intensivists worldwide, to assess the knowledge and use of all aspects of the ABCDEF bundle (Assessment, prevention and management of pain; spontaneous awakening and Breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assessment; Early mobility and exercise and Family engagement and empowerment.) Measurement and Main Results There were 1521 respondents from 47 countries, 57% had implemented the ABCDEF bundle, with varying degrees of compliance across continents. Most of the respondents (83%) used a scale to evaluate pain. SATs and SBTs are performed in 66% and 67% of the responder ICUs respectively. Sedation scale was used in 89% of ICUs. Delirium monitoring was implemented in 70% of ICUs, but only 42% used a validated delirium tool. Likewise, early mobilization was “prescribed” by most but 69% had no mobility team and 79% used no formal mobility scale. Only 36% of the respondents assessed ICU acquired weakness. Family members were actively involved in 67% of ICUs, however only 33% used dedicated staff to support families and only 35% reported that their unit was open 24 hours/day for family visits. Conclusions The current implementation of the ABCDEF bundle varies across individual components and regions. We identified specific targets for quality improvement and adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. Our data reflect a significant but incomplete shift towards patient- and family-centered ICU care in accordance with the PAD guidelines.

Background: Sepsis is a major reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, also in resource-poor settings. ICUs in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) face many challenges that could affect patient outcome. Aim: To describe differences between resource-poor and resource-rich settings regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, economics and research aspects of sepsis. We restricted this manuscript to the ICU setting even knowing that many sepsis patients in LMICs are treated outside an ICU. Findings: Although many bacterial pathogens causing sepsis in LMICs are similar to those in high-income countries, resistance patterns to antimicrobial drugs can be very different; in addition, causes of sepsis in LMICs often include tropical diseases in which direct damaging effects of pathogens and their products can sometimes be more important than the response of the host. There are substantial and persisting differences in ICU capacities around the world; not surprisingly the lowest capacities are found in LMICs, but with important heterogeneity within individual LMICs. Although many aspects of sepsis management developed in rich countries are applicable in LMICs, implementation requires strong consideration of cost implications and the important differences in resources. Conclusions: Addressing both disease-specific and setting-specific factors is important to improve performance of ICUs in LMICs. Although critical care for severe sepsis is likely cost-effective in LMIC setting, more detailed evaluation at both at a macro-and micro-economy level is necessary. Sepsis management in resource-limited settings is a largely unexplored frontier with important opportunities for research, training, and other initiatives for improvement.

No abstract