Journal of the Intensive Care Society

Bereaved ICU family members frequently experience anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, which have been associated with significantly impaired quality of life. Recognising that their needs extend beyond the support provided by their friends and family, the Intensive Care Society had published in 1998 recommendations around bereavement care.

The aim of the present national audit was to compare bereavement services in England against the nine recommendations set out by the Intensive Care Society guidelines.

A telephone audit was carried out in all adult ICUs in England.

A total of 144 NHS Trusts (179 ICUs) met the inclusion criteria and 113 responses were collected (78% of Trusts, 63% of individual ICUs). Although most ICUs provided administrative information (96% had an information booklet), training (53%), auditing (19%) and adequate facilities (27%) did not meet the recommended standards.

Bereavement care is underdeveloped in English ICUs. This important but underreported topic should be prioritised in the critical care research agenda.

To audit the quality and safety of the current doctor-to-doctor handover of patient information in our Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit. If deficient, to implement a validated handover tool to improve the quality of the handover process.

In Cycle 1 we observed the verbal handover and reviewed the written handover information transferred for 50 consecutive patients in St George’s Hospital Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit. For each patient’s handover, we assessed whether each section of the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations tool was used on a scale of 0–2. Zero if no information in that category was transferred, one if the information was partially transferred and two if all relevant information was transferred. Each patient’s handover received a score from 0 to 10 and thus, each cycle a total score of 0–500. Following the implementation of the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations handover tool in our Intensive Care Unit in Cycle 2, we re-observed the handover process for another 50 consecutive patients hence, completing the audit cycle.

There was a significant difference between the total scores from Cycle 1 and 2 (263/500 versus 457/500, p < 0.001). The median handover score for Cycle 1 was 5/10 (interquartile range 4–6). The median handover score for Cycle 2 was 9/10 (interquartile range 9–10). Patient handover scores increased significantly between Cycle 1 and 2, U = 13.5, p < 0.001.

The introduction of a standardised handover template (Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations tool) has improved the quality and safety of the doctor-to-doctor handover of patient information in our Intensive Care Unit.

Hospital admissions with decompensated chronic alcoholic liver disease have been increasing, leading to increased pressure on intensive care unit services.

We aimed to determine the outcome and prognostic factors for patients with alcoholic liver disease requiring admission to intensive care unit.

This was a retrospective study over 5 years (January 2006–December 2010) of all intensive care unit admissions with alcoholic liver disease to either of the two Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust general intensive care units. A detailed case note review was conducted based on a pre-established proforma. Eighty-two patients included. Primary outcome was hospital mortality.

The overall intensive care unit and hospital mortality were 46% and 67%, respectively. Hospital mortality in patients successfully discharged from intensive care unit with the intent of recovery remained high at 21%. Variceal bleed was the only indicator that had a mortality <60%. Factors which suggested a poor outcome included sepsis (86% mortality) and hepato-renal syndrome (86% mortality). A Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of greater than 10 on intensive care unit admission was associated with 97% hospital mortality. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score increased from a mean of 10.9–12.5 in those that did not survive hospital. Patients with first alcoholic liver disease related admission had poorer outcomes.

These results are similar to previous studies with no significant improvement in outcomes. Alcoholic liver disease is not a contra-indication to intensive care unit admission but assessment of the individual patient is required. The most appropriate objective factors to guide prognostication are the presenting intensive care unit diagnosis and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. First presentation of alcoholic liver disease is not a positive prognostic indicator.

Clinical trials in critical care are often resource-intense, with many unique challenges. Barriers to effective recruitment and implementation of study intervention have not been explored in a UK context.

To identify facilitating factors and barriers to enrolling patients into critical care clinical trials within the UK from clinician’s perspectives.

A qualitative interview study was undertaken on behalf of the National Institute of Health Research critical care specialty group, in which research active clinicians across different Clinical Research Networks were interviewed. A loosely structured interview schedule was used, based on themes generated from the literature associated with accessing critical care trials. Research teams (critical care doctors, research nurses, and trial coordinators) from hospitals from each Clinical Research Network were contacted to try to achieve representation across the UK.

Interviews were carried out across nine UK Clinical Research Networks with a range of doctors and research nurses. All hospitals were teaching hospitals with varying research nurse numbers and allocated consultant research sessions. There were a range of six to nine ongoing clinical trials in critical care for each centre representative interviewed. Data were analysed using framework analysis, and six final themes were identified related to factors associated with: centre, unit, resources, study, clinician, and patient/family. The most commonly cited barrier to conducting clinical trials was related to resources, namely insufficient human and financial resources, leading to staff and study recruitment difficulties. Clinical uncertainty and equipoise regarding comparative merits of trials were challenging in terms of engaging critical care teams. A number of patient and family factors added complexities in terms of recruitment; however, refusal rates were generally reported as low.

Flexibility in funding and employment by research teams enables continuity of studies and staff. Innovative measures to incentivise research nurses and clinical teams can help recruit more patients into trials. Research teams are highly committed to providing cover to recruit critical care trials, and a significant effort to anticipate barriers is undertaken; these endeavours are summarised to provide guidance for other teams wishing to address any potential difficulties.