UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme and National Institutes of Health.

No abstract

Background Little information is available about the geo-economic variations in demographics, management, and outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to characterise the effect of these geo-economic variations in patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE). Methods LUNG SAFE was done during 4 consecutive weeks in winter, 2014, in a convenience sample of 459 intensivecare units in 50 countries across six continents. Inclusion criteria were admission to a participating intensive-care unit (including transfers) within the enrolment window and receipt of invasive or non-invasive ventilation. One of the trial's secondary aims was to characterise variations in the demographics, management, and outcome of patients with ARDS. We used the 2016 World Bank countries classification to define three major geo-economic groupings, namely European high-income countries (Europe-High), high-income countries in the rest of the world (rWORLD-High), and middle-income countries (Middle). We compared patient outcomes across these three groupings. LUNG SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02010073. Findings Of the 2813 patients enrolled in LUNG SAFE who fulfilled ARDS criteria on day 1 or 2, 1521 (54%) were recruited from Europe-High, 746 (27%) from rWORLD-High, and 546 (19%) from Middle countries. We noted significant geographical variations in demographics, risk factors for ARDS, and comorbid diseases. The proportion of patients with severe ARDS or with ratios of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO 2) to the fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (F I O 2) less than 150 was significantly lower in rWORLD-High countries than in the two other regions. Use of prone positioning and neuromuscular blockade was significantly more common in Europe-High countries than in the other two regions. Adjusted duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive-care unit were significantly shorter in patients in rWORLD-High countries than in Europe-High or Middle countries. High gross national income per person was associated with increased survival in ARDS; hospital survival was significantly lower in Middle countries than in Europe-High or rWORLD-High countries. Interpretation Important geo-economic differences exist in the severity, clinician recognition, and management of ARDS, and in patients' outcomes. Income per person and outcomes in ARDS are independently associated.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the effectiveness of a proficiency-based progression (PBP) training approach to clinical communication in the context of a clinically deteriorating patient.DesignThis is a randomised controlled trial with three parallel arms.SettingThis study was conducted in a university in Ireland.ParticipantsThis study included 45 third year nursing and 45 final year medical undergraduates scheduled to undertake interdisciplinary National Early Warning Score (NEWS) training over a 3-day period in September 2016.InterventionsParticipants were prospectively randomised to one of three groups before undertaking a performance assessment of the ISBAR (Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation) communication tool relevant to a deteriorating patient in a high-fidelity simulation facility. The groups were as follows: (i) E, the Irish Health Service national NEWS e-learning programme only; (ii) E+S, the national e-learning programme plus standard simulation; and (iii) E+PBP, the national e-learning programme plus PBP simulation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion in each group reaching a predefined proficiency benchmark comprising a series of predefined steps, errors and critical errors during the performance of a standardised, high-fidelity simulation assessment case which was recorded and scored by two independent blinded assessors.Results6.9% (2/29) of the E group and 13% (3/23) of the E+S group demonstrated proficiency in comparison to 60% (15/25) of the E+PBP group. The difference between the E and the E+S groups was not statistically significant (χ2=0.55, 99% CI 0.63 to 0.66, p=0.63) but was significant for the difference between the E and the E+PBP groups (χ2=22.25, CI 0.00 to 0.00, p<0.000) and between the E+S and the E+PBP groups (χ2=11.04, CI 0.00 to 0.00, p=0.001).ConclusionsPBP is a more effective way to teach clinical communication in the context of the deteriorating patient than e-learning either alone or in combination with standard simulation.Trial registration numberNCT02886754; Results.

No abstract