These first results from the NCAA database describing the current incidence and outcome of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest in UK hospitals will serve as a benchmark from which to assess the future impact of changes in service delivery, organisation and treatment for in-hospital cardiac arrest.

Between 1997 and 2013, the outcome of cancer patients with an unplanned admission to ICU improved significantly. Among those admitted between 2009 and 2013, independent risk factors for hospital mortality were age, severity of illness, previous cardiopulmonary resuscitation, previous ICU admission, metastatic disease, and admission for respiratory reasons.

BackgroundThe present study was designed to (1) establish current sedation practice in UK critical care to inform evidence synthesis and potential future primary research and (2) to compare practice reported via a survey with actual practice assessed in a point prevalence study (PPS).MethodsUK adult general critical care units were invited to participate in a survey of current sedation practice, and a representative sample of units was invited to participate in a PPS of sedation practice at the patient level. Survey responses were compared with PPS data where both were available.ResultsSurvey responses were received from 214 (91 %) of 235 eligible critical care units. Of these respondents, 57 % reported having a written sedation protocol, 94 % having a policy of daily sedation holds and 94 % using a sedation scale to assess depth of sedation. In the PPS, across units reporting a policy of daily sedation holds, a median of 50 % (IQR 33–75 %) of sedated patients were considered for a sedation hold. A median of 88 % (IQR 63–100 %) of patients were assessed using the same sedation scale as reported in the survey. Both the survey and the PPS indicated propofol as the preferred sedative and alfentanil, fentanyl and morphine as the preferred analgesics. In most of the PPS units, all patients had received the unit’s reported first-choice sedative (median across units 100 %, IQR 64–100 %), and a median of 80 % (IQR 67–100 %) of patients had received the unit’s reported first-choice analgesic. Most units (83 %) reported in the survey that sedatives are usually administered in combination with analgesics. Across units that participated in the PPS, 69 % of patients had received a combination of agents – most frequently propofol combined with either alfentanil or fentanyl.ConclusionsClinical practice reported in the national survey did not accurately reflect actual clinical practice at the patient level observed in the PPS. Employing a mixed methods approach provided a more complete picture of sedation practice in terms of breadth and depth of information.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1532-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: With improving rates of initial survival in severe sepsis, second-hit infections that occur following resolution of the primary insult carry an increasing burden of morbidity. However, despite the clinical relevance of these infections, no data are available on differential outcomes in patients with first and second-hit infections depending on the nature of the causative organism. This study aims to explore any differences in these subgroups.Design: In a retrospective, observational cohort study, the United Kingdom Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC) database was used to explore the outcomes of patient with first-hit infections leading to sepsis, and sepsis patients with second-hit infections grouped according to the Gram status of the causative organism.Setting: General critical care units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland participating in the ICNARC programme between 1 January, 2007 and 30 June, 2012.Patients: Patient groups analyzed included 2119 patients with and 1319 patients without sepsis who developed an intensive care unit acquired infection in blood. Subgroups included patients with trauma, emergency neurosurgery, elective surgery, and cardiogenic shock.Measurements and main results: Gram-negative organisms were associated with poorer outcomes in first-hit infections. The 90-day mortality of patients who developed a Gram-negative infection was 43.6% following elective surgery and 27.9% following trauma. This compared with a mortality of 25.6 and 20.6%, respectively, in Gram-positive infections. Unexpectedly, an inverse relationship between Gram status and mortality was observed in second-hit infections. Patients with an initial diagnosis of sepsis who developed secondary infections caused by Gram-negative organisms had a 90-day mortality of 40.4%, compared with 43.6% in Gram-positive infections.Conclusions: Our study identifies a fundamental difference in patient outcomes between first-hit and second-hit bacterial infections, which may be due to genetic, microbiological, immunological, and environmental factors. This finding has direct implications for risk stratification and defines future research priorities.

Mass casualty decontamination is a public health intervention that would be employed by emergency responders following a chemical, biological, or radiological incident. The decontamination of large numbers of casualties is currently most often performed with water to remove contaminants from the skin surface. An online survey was conducted to explore US fire departments' decontamination practices and their preparedness for responding to incidents involving mass casualty decontamination. Survey respondents were asked to provide details of various aspects of their decontamination procedures, including expected response times to reach casualties, disrobing procedures, approaches to decontamination, characteristics of the decontamination showering process, provision for special populations, and any actions taken following decontamination. The aim of the survey was to identify any differences in the way in which decontamination guidance is implemented across US states. Results revealed that, in line with current guidance, many US fire departments routinely use the ''ladder-pipe system'' for conducting rapid, gross decontamination of casualties.The survey revealed significant variability in ladder-pipe construction, such as the position and number of fire hoses used.There was also variability in decontamination characteristics, such as water temperature and water pressure, detergent use, and shower duration. The results presented here provide important insights into the ways in which implementation of decontamination guidance can vary between US states. These inconsistencies are thought to reflect established perceived best practices and local adaptation of response plans to address practical and logistical constraints. These outcomes highlight the need for evidence-based national guidelines for conducting mass casualty decontamination.