No abstract

The objectives of this prospective observational study were to determine the proportion of patients with traumatic brain injury who received effective anti-seizure prophylaxis. The study was conducted in a tertiary level ICU of a major trauma referral centre between February 2012 and August 2013. A total of 2361 patients were admitted to the ICU in this study period, of whom 125 patients (index) with traumatic head injury were included in this study. The patients had a mean age of 45 years (SD=19), a mean score on the Glasgow Coma Scale of 9 (SD=4), a mean injury severity score of 27 (SD=13) and a mean APACHE III score of 55 (SD=27). Only 13.6 % (17 of 125) of patients were given anti-seizure prophylaxis and phenytoin levels were measured in 9.6% (12 of 125). Although all 12 patients achieved an effective concentration for phenytoin therapy (>40 μmol/l) after the loading dose, no patient had their target concentration consistently maintained in the recommended therapeutic range (40 to 80 μmol/l) throughout the seven-day monitoring period. There was wide fluctuation in phenytoin levels in the patients in this study. Twenty-two (18%) of the index patients had posttraumatic seizures, indicating a high prevalence for this study. Poor compliance with guidelines could possibly explain this phenomenon. Future studies are needed to look at the dosing and monitoring of phenytoin and/or alternative anti-seizure prophylaxis in patients with traumatic brain injury.

Documentation of LMT orders at the time of an RRT call is less likely to include documented involvement of patients or their next of kin, and is more likely to be an NFRRT or MRRT order. These findings have implications for overall clinical governance. What is known about the topic? RRT are not infrequently involved in documenting LMT orders. What does this paper add? This is the first study in Australasia to look into the timing and circumstances surrounding the issuing of a NFR order during an RRT call. The study findings clarify the type of LMT orders documented by RRT and to what extent patients, their carers and senior medical staff are involved. What are the implications for practitioners? Our findings indicate that, in the setting of a rapid response system, there is a need to consider beyond the narrow interpretation of the NFR order, when a NFRRT may also be appropriate. This will require standardisation of such nomenclature, and training and education of those involved in documenting and interpreting such orders. Equally, it will require a different approach to the discussion with patients and their carers as to what the implications of an NFRRT order are. The findings also have significant implications as to the senior medical oversight of LMT, in particular for RRT, for whom it is their first encounter with such patients. Finally, the findings suggest that consideration be given to better delineating the documentation of the role of nursing staff when setting LMT orders.