No abstract

No abstract

Background In-person mass gathering events (MGE) are returning after a period of restrictions, yet few prospective scientific evaluations of their safety are available. Methods Prospective observational study, including both attendees of the French Intensive Care Society (FICS) annual meeting held in Paris between June the 9th and June the 11th, 2021 and matched controls (healthcare professionals who stayed in the ICU during the conference). SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow test was performed on day 7. Follow-up occurred until day 21. Results Out of the 1824 healthcare professionals attending the congress (all of which fulfilled legal requirements: 7 days or more following a second dose of vaccine or a negative PCR test performed within less than 72 h), 520 (28.5%) agreed to participate. Follow-up data were received for 216 (41.5%) out of the 520 included attendees, and for 191 matched controls. No positive SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow test was reported in the attendees or in the matched controls. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the MGE was less than 1.7% in the attendees (95% confidence interval [0;1.7%]), less than 2% in the controls (95%CI [0;2%]) and the difference in probabilities of infection was less than 1.9% (95% CI [0;1.9%]). Conclusion During a low incidence period, in this population of congress attendees screened for SARS-CoV-2 by a lateral flow test at day 7, no positive cases could be documented, no concomitant infection occurred in the matched controls; suggesting no extra risk of infection during the MGE. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov, #NCT04918160.

OBJECTIVES: Standard nursing interventions, especially bed-baths, in ICUs can lead to complications or adverse events defined as a physiologic change that can be life-threatening or that prolongs hospitalization. However, the frequency and type of these adverse events are rarely reported in the literature. The primary objective of our study was to describe the proportion of patients experiencing at least one serious adverse event during bed-bath. The secondary objectives were to determine the incidence of each type of serious adverse event and identify risk factors for these serious adverse events. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter observational study. SETTING: Twenty-four ICUs in France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. PATIENTS: The patients included in this study had been admitted to an ICU for less than 72 hours and required at least one of the following treatments: invasive ventilation, vasopressors, noninvasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy. Serious adverse events were defined as cardiac arrest, accidental extubation, desaturation and/or mucus plugging/inhalation, hypotension and/or arrhythmia and/or agitation requiring therapeutic intervention, acute pain, accidental disconnection or dysfunction of equipment, and patient fall requiring additional assistance. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study included 253 patients from May 1, 2018, to July 31, 2018 in 24 ICUs, representing 1,529 nursing procedures. The mean Simplified Acute Physiology Score II was 54 ± 19. Nursing care was administered by an average of 2 ± 1 caregivers and lasted between 11 and 20 minutes. Of the 253 patients included, 142 (56%) experienced at least one serious adverse event. Of the 1,529 nursing procedures, 295 (19%) were complicated by at least one serious adverse event. In multivariate analysis, the factors associated with serious adverse event were as follows: presence of a specific protocol (p = 0.011); tracheostomy (p = 0.032); administration of opioids (p = 0.007); presence of a physician (p = 0.0004); duration of nursing care between 6 and 10 minutes (p = 0.003), duration of nursing care between 11 and 20 minutes (p = 0.005), duration of nursing care greater than 40 minutes (p = 0.04) with a reference duration of nursing care between 20 and 40 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Serious adverse events were observed in one-half of patients and concerned one-fifth of nurses, confirming the need for caution. Further studies are needed to test systematic serious adverse event prevention strategies.

Background The death rate in intensive care units (ICUs) can reach 20%. More than half occurs after a decision of care withholding/withdrawal. We aimed at describing and evaluating the experience of ICU physicians and nurses involved in the end-of-life (EOL) procedure. Primary objective was the evaluation of the experience of EOL assessed by the CAESAR questionnaire. Secondary objectives were to describe factors associated with a low or high score and to examine the association between Numeric Analogic Scale and quality of EOL. Methods Consecutive adult patients deceased in 52 ICUs were included between April and June 2018. Characteristics of patients and caregivers, therapeutics and care involved after withdrawal were recorded. CAESAR score included 15 items, rated from 1 (traumatic experience) to 5 (comforting experience). The sum was rated from 15 to 75 (the highest, the best experience). Numeric Analogic Scale was rated from 0 (worst EOL) to 10 (optimal EOL). Results Five hundred and ten patients were included, 403 underwent decision of care withholding/withdrawal, and among them 362 underwent effective care withdrawal. Among the 510 patients, mean CAESAR score was 55/75 (± 6) for nurses and 62/75 (± 5) for physicians (P < 0.001). Mean Numeric Analogic Scale was 8 (± 2) for nurses and 8 (± 2) for physicians (P = 0.06). CAESAR score and Numeric Analogic Scale were significantly but weakly correlated. They were significantly higher for both nurses and physicians if the patient died after a decision of withholding/withdrawal. In multivariable analysis, among the 362 patients with effective care withdrawal, disagreement on the intensity of life support between caregivers, non-invasive ventilation and monitoring and blood tests the day of death were associated with lower score for nurses. For physicians, cardiopulmonary resuscitation the day of death was associated with lower score in multivariable analysis. Conclusion Experience of EOL was better in patients with withholding/withdrawal decision as compared to those without. Our results suggest that improvement of nurses’ participation in the end-of-life process, as well as less invasive care, would probably improve the experience of EOL for both nurses and physicians. Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT03392857.