Background The COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted Intensive Care Units (ICUs) and Critical Care Healthcare Providers (HCPs) worldwide. Research Question How do regional differences and perceived lack of ICU resources affect critical care resource utilization and the well-being of HCPs? Study Design and Methods Between April 23 rd -May 7 th 2020, we electronically administered a 41-question survey to interdisciplinary HCPs caring for critically ill COVID-19 patients. The survey was distributed via critical care societies, research networks, personal contacts, and social media portals. Responses were tabulated by World Bank region. We performed multivariate log-binomial regression to assess factors associated with three main outcomes: 1) Limiting mechanical ventilation (MV), 2) changes in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) practices, and 3) emotional distress or burnout. Results We included 2700 respondents from 77 countries, including physicians (41%), nurses (40%), respiratory therapists (10%) and advanced practice providers (8%). The reported lack of ICU nurses was higher than that of intensivists (32% vs 15%). Limiting MV for COVID-19 patients was reported by 16% of respondents, was lowest in North America (10%), and was associated with reduced ventilator availability (aRR:2.10, 95% CI:1.61-2.74). Overall, 66% of respondents reported changes in CPR practices. Emotional distress or burnout was high across regions (52%, highest in North America), and associated with female gender (aRR:1.16, 95% CI:1.01-1.33), being a nurse (aRR:1.31, 95% CI:1.13-1.53), reporting a shortage of ICU nurses (aRR:1.18, 95% CI:1.05-1.33) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) (aRR:1.30 95% CI:1.09-1.55), as well as experiencing poor communication from supervisors (aRR:1.30, 95% CI:1.16-1.46). Interpretation Our findings demonstrate variability in ICU resource availability and utilization worldwide. The high prevalence of provider burnout, and its association with reported insufficient resources and poor communication from supervisors suggest a need for targeted interventions to support HCPs on the front lines.

Devastating brain injuries (DBIs) profoundly damage cerebral function and frequently cause death. DBI survivors admitted to critical care will suffer both intracranial and extracranial effects from their brain injury. The indicators of quality care in DBI are not completely defined, and despite best efforts many patients will not survive, although others may have better outcomes than originally anticipated. Inaccuracies in prognostication can result in premature termination of life support, thereby biasing outcomes research and creating a self-fulfilling cycle where the predicted course is almost invariably dismal. Because of the potential complexities and controversies involved in the management of devastating brain injury, the Neurocritical Care Society organized a panel of expert clinicians from neurocritical care, neuroanesthesia, neurology, neurosurgery, emergency medicine, nursing, and pharmacy to develop an evidence-based guideline with practice recommendations. The panel intends for this guideline to be used by critical care physicians, neurologists, emergency physicians, and other health professionals, with specific emphasis on management during the first 72-h post-injury. Following an extensive literature review, the panel used the GRADE methodology to evaluate the robustness of the data. They made actionable recommendations based on the quality of evidence, as well as on considerations of risk: benefit ratios, cost, and user preference. The panel generated recommendations regarding prognostication, psychosocial issues, and ethical considerations.

Background Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on intensive care unit (ICU) providers’ perceptions of resource availability and evaluating factors associated with emotional distress/burnout can inform interventions to promote provider well-being. Methods Between April 23-May 7, 2020, we electronically administered a survey to physicians, nurses, respiratory therapist (RTs) and advanced practice providers (APPs) caring for COVID-19 patients in the US. We conducted multivariate regression to assess associations between concerns, reported lack of resources and three outcomes: emotional distress/burnout (primary outcome), and two secondary outcomes: 1) fear that hospital is unable to keep providers safe, and 2) concern about transmitting COVID-19 to family/community. Results We included 1,651 respondents from all 50 states; 47% nurses, 25% physicians, 17% RTs, 11% APPS. Shortages of intensivists and ICU nurses were reported by 12% and 28% of providers, respectively. The largest supply restrictions reported were for powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs); (56% reporting restricted availability). Provider concerns included worries about transmitting COVID-19 to family/community (66%), emotional distress/burnout (58%), and insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) (40%). After adjustment, emotional distress/burnout was significantly associated with insufficient PPE access (aRR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.32 - 1.55), stigma from community (aRR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.24 - 1.41), and poor communication with supervisors (aRR:1.13, 95% CI: 1.06 - 1.21). Insufficient PPE access was the strongest predictor of feeling that the hospital is unable to keep providers safe and worries about transmitting infection to families/communities. Conclusion Addressing insufficient PPE access, poor communication from supervisors, and community stigma may improve provider mental well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Remifentanil at sedative doses produces both activating and depressing effects in various limbic system structures. The cingulate cortex seems to have the most susceptibility to remifentanil activation, and ApoE4 seems to produce relative activation of the hippocampus and amygdala.

Current evidence shows that fever and hyperthermia are especially detrimental to patients with neurologic injury, leading to higher rates of mortality, greater disability, and longer lengths of stay. Although clinical practice guidelines exist for ischemic stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and traumatic brain injury, they lack specificity in their recommendations for fever management, making it difficult to formulate appropriate protocols for care. Using survey methods, the aims of this study were to (a) describe how nursing practices for fever management in this population have changed over the last several years, (b) assess if institutional protocols and nursing judgment follow published national guidelines for fever management in neuroscience patients, and (c) explore whether nurse or institutional characteristics influence decision making. Compared with the previous survey administered in 2007, there was a small increase (8%) in respondents reporting having an institutional fever protocol specific to neurologic patients. Temperatures to initiate treatment either based on protocols or nurse determination did not change from the previous survey. However, nurses with specialty certification and/or working in settings with institutional awards (e.g., Magnet status or Stroke Center Designation) initiated therapy at a lower temperature. Oral acetaminophen continues to be the primary choice for fever management, followed by ice packs and fans. This study encourages the development of a stepwise approach to neuro-specific protocols for fever management. Furthermore, it shows the continuing need to promote further education and specialty training among nurses and encourage collaboration with physicians to establish best practices.

No abstract

No abstract

Routine clamping of EVD for IHT in cerebrovascular patients is associated with post-IHT ICP complications. Pre-IHT ICP ≥ 15 mmHg, increasing hourly CSF output, and IHT for therapeutic procedures are risk factors.