Objective: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012". Design:A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. Methods:The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.

No abstract

shock (27). The specific components of performance improvement did not appear to be as important as the presence of a program that included sepsis screening and metrics.Sepsis screening tools are designed to promote early identification of sepsis and consist of manual methods or automated use of the electronic health record (EHR). There is wide variation in diagnostic accuracy of these tools with most having poor predictive values, although the use of some was associated with improvements in care processes (28)(29)(30)(31). A variety of clinical variables and tools are used for sepsis screening, such as systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, vital signs, signs of infection, quick Sequential Organ Failure Score (qSOFA) or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria, National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) (26,32). Machine learning may improve performance of screening tools, and in a meta-analysis of 42,623 patients from seven studies for predicting hospital acquired sepsis the pooled area under the receiving operating curve (SAUROC) (0.89; 95% CI, 0.86−0.92); sensitivity (81%; 95% CI, 80−81), and specificity (72%; 95% CI, 72−72) was higher for machine learning than the SAUROC for traditional screening tools such as SIRS (0.70), MEWS (0.50), and SOFA (0.78) (32).Screening tools may target patients in various locations, such as in-patient wards, emergency departments, or ICUs (28)(29)(30)32). A pooled analysis of three RCTs did not demonstrate a mortality benefit of active screening (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.51−1.58) (33-35). However, while there is wide variation in sensitivity and specificity of sepsis screening tools, they are an important component of identifying sepsis early for timely intervention.Standard operating procedures are a set of practices that specify a preferred response to specific clinical circumstances (36). Sepsis standard operating procedures, initially specified as Early Goal Directed Therapy have evolved to "usual care" which includes a standard approach with components of the sepsis bundle, early identification, lactate, cultures, antibiotics, and fluids (37). A large study examined the association between implementation of state-mandated sepsis protocols, compliance, and mortality. A retrospective cohort study of 1,012,410 sepsis admissions to 509 hospitals in the United States in a retrospective cohort examined mortality before (27 months) and after (30 months) implementation of New York state sepsis regulations, with a concurrent control population from four other states (38). In this comparative interrupted time series, mortality was lower in hospitals with higher compliance with achieving the sepsis bundles successfully.Lower resource countries may experience a different effect. A meta-analysis of two RCTs in Sub-Saharan Africa found higher mortality (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00−1.58) with standard operating procedures compared with usual care, while it was decreased in one observational study (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]; 95% CI, 0.55...

Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

BACKGROUND:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU.

Burnout syndrome (BOS) occurs in all types of health care professionals and is especially common in individuals who care for critically ill patients. The development of BOS is related to an imbalance of personal characteristics of the employee and work-related issues or other organizational factors. BOS is associated with many deleterious consequences, including increased rates of job turnover, reduced patient satisfaction, and decreased quality of care. BOS also directly affects the mental health and physical well-being of the many critical care physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals who practice worldwide. Until recently, BOS and other psychological disorders in critical care health care professionals remained relatively unrecognized. To raise awareness of BOS, the Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) developed this call to action. The present article reviews the diagnostic criteria, prevalence, causative factors, and consequences of BOS. It also discusses potential interventions that may be used to prevent and treat BOS. Finally, we urge multiple stakeholders to help mitigate the development of BOS in critical care health care professionals and diminish the harmful consequences of BOS, both for critical care health care professionals and for patients.

• Background Moral distress is caused by situations in which the ethically appropriate course of action is known but cannot be taken. Moral distress is thought to be a serious problem among nurses, particularly those who practice in critical care. It has been associated with job dissatisfaction and loss of nurses from the workplace and the profession.• Objectives To assess the level of moral distress of nurses in a medical intensive care unit, identify situations that result in high levels of moral distress, explore implications of moral distress, and evaluate associations among moral distress and individual characteristics of nurses.• Methods A descriptive, questionnaire study was used. A total of 28 nurses working in a medical intensive care unit anonymously completed a 38-item moral distress scale and described implications of experiences of moral distress.• Results Nurses reported a moderate level of moral distress overall. Highest levels of distress were associated with the provision of aggressive care to patients not expected to benefit from that care. Moral distress was significantly correlated with years of nursing experience. Nurses reported that moral distress adversely affected job satisfaction, retention, psychological and physical well-being, self-image, and spirituality. Experience of moral distress also influenced attitudes toward advance directives and participation in blood donation and organ donation.• Conclusions Critical care nurses commonly encounter situations that are associated with high levels of moral distress. Experiences of moral distress have implications that extend well beyond job satisfaction and retention. Strategies to mitigate moral distress should be developed and tested.

Burnout syndrome (BOS) occurs in all types of health-care professionals and is especially common in individuals who care for critically ill patients. The development of BOS is related to an imbalance of personal characteristics of the employee and work-related issues or other organizational factors. BOS is associated with many deleterious consequences, including increased rates of job turnover, reduced patient satisfaction, and decreased quality of care. BOS also directly affects the mental health and physical well-being of the many critical care physicians, nurses, and other health-care professionals who practice worldwide. Until recently, BOS and other psychological disorders in critical care health-care professionals remained relatively unrecognized. To raise awareness of BOS, the Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) developed this call to action. The present article reviews the diagnostic criteria, prevalence, causative factors, and consequences of BOS. It also discusses potential interventions that may be used to prevent and treat BOS. Finally, we urge multiple stakeholders to help mitigate the development of BOS in critical care health-care professionals and diminish the harmful consequences of BOS, both for critical care health-care professionals and for patients.