Background
There are no published studies assessing learning needs and attitudes prior to attending a medical emergency team (MET) education programme.
Aims
To conduct a learning needs assessment of MET education programme participants to assess what technical and non‐technical skills should be incorporated.
Methods
All participants in a MET education programme over a 12‐month period were invited to complete a self‐administered electronic survey. Participants were ICU team members (intensive care registrars and nurses) and medical registrars. Responses were captured through a 5‐point Likert scale.
Results
There were 62 responses out of 112 participants (55% response rate). Most participants either agreed or strongly agreed that MET training was valuable (59 respondents) and should be multidisciplinary (61 respondents). ICU team members were more likely to select ‘Management of End‐of‐Life Care’ (72% compared with only 16% of medical registrars, P < 0.05) as an important learning objective. Non‐technical skills such as ‘Task Management’ (67% compared with 37%, P < 0.05) and ‘Team Communication’ (79% compared with 32%, P < 0.05) were also more likely to be selected by ICU team members. Nursing team members were more likely to select ‘Approach to Common MET Calls’ (100% compared with 50% of medical team members, P < 0.05).
Conclusions
MET education programme participants overwhelmingly feel that training should be multidisciplinary. However, there are disparities between the perceived learning needs of medical and nursing personnel, and between intensive care team members and medical registrars, which may impact on the design and implementation of a multidisciplinary education programme.
Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common cause of organ failure in trauma patients who survive their initial injuries. It is independently associated with increased morbidity and mortality and prolongs the length of hospital stays. The objectives of this study were to describe the incidence of early AKI and influence of risk factors in polytrauma patients and evaluate the predictive potential of TIMP2 × IGFBP7 biomarkers in this patient cohort. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of severely injured adult patients who were consecutively admitted to a multidisciplinary ICU from May 2017 to May 2019. Detailed patient data was retrieved from ICU medical records. Fluid balance, urinary output, and sCr values up to 72 h were collected. Urine samples for measuring TIMP2 × IGFBP7 concentrations were obtained and analyzed from ICU admission to 72 h. Results: Among the 153 patients eligible for analysis, 45 were included in the AKI, and 108 in the no AKI cohorts. The incidence of AKI within 72 h, based on KDIGO criteria, was 28.8%. There were no differences in ISS, type and mechanism of injury, heart rate, and systolic BP at admission between groups. Patients with early AKI were older (68 vs. 49 years, p < 0.001), obese (BMI 26.2 vs. 24.7, p < 0.048), and more likely to have previous cardiac disease (27% vs. 5.6%, p < 0.001). TIMP2 × IGFBP7 values on ICU admission were associated with subsequent AKI in patients without evidence of AKI at the time of ICU admission. They were also higher in the AKI cohort and significantly correlated with renal replacement therapy (RRT) and episodes of hypotension. Multivariable analysis confirmed age, previous cardiac disease, and NephroCheck as the variables mostly associated with AKI, with AUC 0.792. Conclusion: TIMP2 × IGFBP7 may help identify trauma patients with tubular damage that may evolve into a clinically manifested syndrome. Prospective studies of TIMP2 × IGFBP7, as a trigger for early AKI bundle care, are warranted.
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.