The 43% survival rate in trauma patients receiving > 50 units of blood products warrants continued aggressive transfusion therapy in the first 24 hours after admission.
An individualized approach to sedation based on knowledge of drug pharmacology is needed because of confounding variables including concurrent patient illness, depth of sedation, and concomitant use of analgesic agents. (Crit Care Med 2000; 28:854-866)
Objectives
In the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT) of the National
Institutes of Health Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, a
conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Conservative) resulted in a lower
cumulative fluid balance and better outcomes than a liberal fluid protocol
(FACTT Liberal). Subsequent Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network
studies used a simplified conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Lite). The
objective of this study was to compare the performance of FACTT Lite, FACTT
Conservative, and FACTT Liberal protocols.
Design
Retrospective comparison of FACTT Lite, FACTT Conservative, and FACTT
Liberal. Primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance over 7 days. Secondary
outcomes were 60-day adjusted mortality and ventilator-free days through day
28. Safety outcomes were prevalence of acute kidney injury and new
shock.
Setting
ICUs of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network participating
hospitals.
Patients
Five hundred three subjects managed with FACTT Conservative, 497
subjects managed with FACTT Liberal, and 1,124 subjects managed with FACTT
Lite.
Interventions
Fluid management by protocol.
Measurements and Main Results
Cumulative fluid balance was 1,918 ± 323 mL in FACTT Lite,
−136 ±491 mL in FACTT Conservative, and 6,992 ± 502
mL in FACTT Liberal (p < 0.001). Mortality was not
different between groups (24% in FACTT Lite, 25% in FACTT
Conservative and Liberal, p = 0.84).
Ventilator-free days in FACTT Lite (14.9 ±0.3) were equivalent to
FACTT Conservative (14.6±0.5) (p = 0.61)
and greater than in FACTT Liberal (12.1 ±0.5, p
< 0.001 vs Lite). Acute kidney injury prevalence was 58% in
FACTT Lite and 57% in FACTT Conservative (p
= 0.72). Prevalence of new shock in FACTT Lite (9%) was
lower than in FACTT Conservative (13%) (p =
0.007 vs Lite) and similar to FACTT Liberal (11%)
(p = 0.18 vs Lite).
Conclusions
FACTT Lite had a greater cumulative fluid balance than FACTT
Conservative but had equivalent clinical and safety outcomes. FACTT Lite is
an alternative to FACTT Conservative for fluid management in Acute
Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
Graduating nursing and medical students missed several hazards of hospitalization, especially those related to the intensive care unit. Orientation for residents and new nurses should include education on hospitalization hazards. Ideally, this orientation should be interprofessional to allow appreciation for each other's roles and responsibilities.
Medical education teaching methods and assessment in the intensive care unit have changed little since the initiation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education regulations despite respondents' self-report of a willingness to change. Instead, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education regulations are thought to have negatively impacted resident attitudes, continuity of care, and even availability for teaching. These concerns, coupled with lack of protected time and funding, serve as barriers toward changes in critical care graduate medical education.
Future Capstone curriculum changes may further enhance SDL skills of graduating students. Students will receive increased formative feedback on their CaPOW performance and be incentivized to attend sessions in areas of personal weakness.
Purpose
When the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) changed policies about medical student documentation, students with proper supervision may now document their history, physical exam, and medical decision making in the electronic health record (EHR) for billable encounters. Since documentation is a core entrustable professional activity for medical students, the authors sought to evaluate student opportunities for documentation and feedback across and between clerkships.
Method
In February 2018, a multidisciplinary workgroup was formed to implement student documentation at Duke University Health System, including educating trainees and supervisors, tracking EHR usage, and enforcing CMS compliance. From August 2018 to August 2019, locations and types of student-involved services (student–faculty or student–resident–faculty) were tracked using billing data from attestation statements. Student end-of-clerkship evaluations included opportunity for documentation and receipt of feedback. Since documentation was not allowed before August 2018, it was not possible to compare with prior student experiences.
Results
In the first half of the academic year, 6,972 patient encounters were billed as student-involved services, 52% (n = 3,612) in the inpatient setting and 47% (n = 3,257) in the outpatient setting. Most (74%) of the inpatient encounters also involved residents, and most (92%) of outpatient encounters were student–teaching physician only.
Approximately 90% of students indicated having had opportunity to document in the EHR across clerkships, except for procedure-based clerkships such as surgery and obstetrics. Receipt of feedback was present along with opportunity for documentation more than 85% of the time on services using evaluation and management coding. Most students (> 90%) viewed their documentation as having a moderate or high impact on patient care.
Conclusions
Changes to student documentation were successfully implemented and adopted; changes met both compliance and education needs within the health system without resulting in potential abuses of student work for service.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.