The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020), a Japanese‐specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J‐SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English‐language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese‐language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high‐quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J‐SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU‐acquired weakness [ICU‐AW], post‐intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J‐SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient‐ and family‐centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro‐intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large‐scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE‐based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J‐SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Aim In‐hospital cardiac arrest is an important issue in health care today. Data regarding in‐hospital cardiac arrest in Japan is limited. In Australia and the USA, the Rapid Response System has been implemented in many institutions and data regarding in‐hospital cardiac arrest are collected to evaluate the efficacy of the Rapid Response System. This is a multicenter retrospective survey of in‐hospital cardiac arrest, providing data before implementing a Rapid Response System. Methods Ten institutions planning to introduce a Rapid Response System were recruited to collect in‐hospital cardiac arrest data. The Institutional Review Board at each participating institution approved this study. Data for patients admitted at each institution from April 1, 2011 until March 31, 2012 were extracted using the three keywords “closed‐chest compression”, “epinephrine”, and “defibrillation”. Patients under 18 years old, or who suffered cardiac arrest in the emergency room or the intensive care unit were excluded. Results A total of 228 patients in 10 institutions were identified. The average age was 73 ± 13 years. Males represented 64% of the patients (82/146). Overall survival after in‐hospital cardiac arrest was 7% (16/228). Possibly preventable cardiac arrests represented 15% (33/228) of patients, with medical safety issues identified in 8% (19/228). Vital sign abnormalities before cardiac arrest were observed in 63% (138/216) of patients. Conclusions Approximately 60% of patients had abnormal vital signs before cardiac arrest. These patients may have an improved clinical outcome by implementing a Rapid Response System.

Aim: Reducing the use of physical restraint in intensive care units is challenging, and little is known about the influence of culture on physical restraint use in this setting. The present study aims to verify the hypothesis that mutual support and a culture of blame among staff are associated with higher physical restraint use for mechanically ventilated patients. Methods: We undertook a survey of nurses in intensive care units caring for mechanically ventilated patients in acute care units. The perceived frequency of physical restraint, mutual support, and culture of blame were measured. We predefined a high frequency physical restraint use group and compared the institutional characteristics, human resources, mutual support, and culture of blame between this group and the others (the control). Results: Three hundred and thirty-three responses were analyzed. The mean number of beds per nurse was not significantly different between the groups; the mean and percentage of positive responses about mutual support and a culture of blame were significantly lower in the high frequency physical restraint use group. After adjusting variables in a multivariable regression analysis, a less positive response about the culture of blame was the only independent factor to predict high frequency physical restraint use. Conclusion: The study suggests that changing the culture of blame, rather than increasing the number of nurses, is important for reducing physical restraint use.

In Japan, the number of facilities introducing a rapid response system (RRS) has been increasing. However, many institutions have had unsuccessful implementations. In order to implement RRS smoothly, a plan that meets the needs of each hospital is needed. Methods: Rapid response system teams from each hospital, including a physician and staff in charge of medical safety, from the RRS online registry were invited to attend a workshop. The workshop aimed to develop and implement RRS. The course curriculum was based on the Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety (TeamSTEPPS) developed in the USA. Participating facilities were required to formulate an RRS introduction plan referring to Kotter's 8-step change model to overcome barriers in the implementation of RRS. The change in medical emergency team activations comparing the intervention and control group hospitals was compared. Results: Sixteen institutions were eligible for this study. After participating in the workshop, there was a tendency toward more frequent activation of medical emergency teams in the intervention group (P = 0.075). According to a self-evaluation from each facility, there is great difficulty in overcoming the 5th step of Kotter's model (empower people to act the vision). Conclusion: This step-by-step evaluation clearly identified a problem with implementation and provided measures for resolution corresponding to each facility. There was a major barrier to overcome the 5th step of Kotter's model in leading change, which represents the attitude toward implementing RRS in institutions.