IntroductionThe combination of opioids and central nervous system depressants such as benzodiazepines and barbiturates has an additive effect on the frequency of oversedation and respiratory depression requiring naloxone use in hospitalized patients. Gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) are frequently prescribed with opioids for their opioid-sparing and adjuvant analgesic effects. There is limited literature on the risk of respiratory depression due to the combination of opioids and gabapentinoids requiring naloxone administration.MethodsThis retrospective study evaluated patients who were prescribed opioids and at least one dose of naloxone between March 1, 2014 and September 30, 2016. The primary objective of this study was to compare the frequency of respiratory depression among patients who received naloxone and opioids (non-gabapentinoid group) with those who received naloxone, opioids, and gabapentinoids (gabapentinoid group). Secondary objectives included comparing the association of oversedation, using the Pasero Opioid-induced Sedation Scale, and various risk factors with those in the gabapentinoid group.ResultsA total of 153 patient episodes of naloxone administration (102 in the non-gabapentinoid and 51 in the gabapentinoid groups) in 125 unique patients were included in the study. For the primary objective, there were 33 episodes of respiratory depression associated with the non-gabapentinoid group (33/102=32.4%) versus 17 episodes of respiratory depression with the gabapentinoid group (17/51=33.3%) (p=0.128). Secondary objectives showed a significant association between respiratory depression and surgery in the previous 24 hours (p=0.036) as well as respiratory depression and age >65 years (p=0.031) for patients in the non-gabapentinoid group compared to the gabapentinoid group.ConclusionThere was no significant association of respiratory depression in the gabapentinoid group versus the non-gabapentinoid group. There was an increased risk of respiratory depression in the gabapentinoid group, specifically in patients who had surgery within the previous 24 hours.

Patients discharged from intensive care units are at risk of short- and long-term physical, cognitive, and emotional symptoms known as post-intensive care syndrome. Family members of intensive care unit patients are at risk of similar symptoms known as post-intensive care syndrome-family. Both syndromes are common, and strategies to reduce risk factors should be employed. An intensive care unit diary project to help reduce these syndromes was implemented in 2 intensive care units using an evidence-based framework. The effects of these diaries were studied using the Family Satisfaction with Care in the Intensive Care Unit survey. Rates of referrals to a postintensive care unit recovery clinic were also observed in relation to the diaries. Although preliminary data did not reveal a significant increase in family satisfaction, the surveys provided important staff feedback. The diaries fostered feelings of compassion and caring as well as built trust between staff and family members of intensive care unit patients. The diaries increased referrals to the postintensive care unit recovery clinic.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Purpose Extracorporeal membrane oxygen (ECMO) is increasingly used as an advanced form of life support for cardiac and respiratory failure. Unfortunately, in infrequent instances, circulatory and/or respiratory recovery is overshadowed by neurologic injury that can occur in patients who require ECMO. As such, knowledge of ECMO and its implications on diagnosis and treatment of neurologic injuries is indispensable for intensivists and neurospecialists. Recent findingsThe most common neurologic injuries include intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, seizure, cerebral edema, intracranial hypertension, global cerebral hypoxia/anoxia, and brain death. These result from events prior to initiation of ECMO, failure of ECMO to provide adequate oxygen delivery, and/or complications that occur during ECMO. ECMO survivors also experience neurological and psychological sequelae similar to other survivors of critical illness. Summary Since many of the risk factors for neurologic injury cannot be easily mitigated, early diagnosis and intervention are crucial to limit morbidity and mortality from neurologic injury during ECMO.

Background Ethics consult services are well established, but often remain underutilized. Our aim was to identify the barriers and perceptions of the Ethics consult service for physicians, advance practice providers (APPs), and nurses at our urban academic medical center which might contribute to underutilization. Methods This was a cross-sectional single-health system, anonymous written online survey, which was developed by the UCSD Health Clinical Ethics Committee and distributed by Survey Monkey. We compare responses between physicians, APPs, and nurses using standard parametric and non-parametric statistical methods. Satisfaction with ethics consult and likelihood of calling Ethics service again were assessed using a 0–100 scale using a 5-likert response structured (0 being “not helpful at all” to 100 being “extremely helpful”) and results presented using box plots and interquartile ranges (IQR). Results From January to July 2019, approximately 3800 surveys were sent to all physicians, APPs and nurses with a return rate of 5.5—10%. Although the majority of respondents had encountered an ethical dilemma (85–92.1%) only approximately half had ever requested an Ethics consult. The primary reason for physicians never having requested a consult was that they never felt the need for help (41%). For APPs the primary reasons were not knowing an Ethics consult service was available (33.3%) or not knowing how to contact Ethics (27.8%). For nurses, it was not knowing how to contact the Ethics consult service (30.8%) or not feeling the need for help (26.2%). The median satisfaction score (IQR) for Ethics consult services rated on a 0–100 scale, from physicians was 76 (29), for AAPs 89 (49), and nurses 70 (40) (p = 0.62). The median (IQR) of likelihood of consulting Ethics in the future also on a 0–100 scale was 71 (47) for physicians, 69 (45) for APPs, and 61 (45) for nurses (p = 0.79). APP’s and nurses were significantly more likely than physicians to believe that the team did not act on the Ethics consult’s recommendations. Conclusions Based on the results presented, we were able to identify actionable steps to better engage healthcare providers—and in particular APPs and nurses—and scale up institutional educational efforts to increase awareness of the role of the Ethics consult service at our institution. Actionable steps included implementing a system of ongoing feedback that is critical for the sustainability of the Ethics service role. We hope this project can serve as a blueprint for other hospital-based Ethics consult services to improve the quality of their programs.