Download PDF
J Pediatr Intensive Care 2020; 09(04): 233-240
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713160
Review Article

Slow and Steady: A Systematic Review of ICU Care Models Relevant to Pediatric Chronic Critical Illness

Rachel Troch
1   Department of Neonatology, Children's National Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia, United States
,
Jamie Schwartz
2   Department of Ananthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Renee Boss
2   Department of Ananthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
3   Department of Neonatal - Perinatal Medicine, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was funded by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center Pediatric Innovation Award.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

There is a growing population of children with prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization. These children with chronic critical illness (CCI) have a high health care utilization. Emerging data suggest a mismatch between the ICU acute care models and the daily care needs of these patients. Clinicians and parents report that the frequent treatment alterations typical for ICU care may be interrupting and jeopardizing the slow recoveries typical for children with CCI. These frequent treatment titrations could therefore be prolonging ICU stays even further. The aim of this study is to evaluate and summarize existing literature regarding pace and consistency of ICU care for patients with CCI. We performed a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (of September 2018). PubMed (biomedical and life sciences literature), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched for English-language studies with data about CCI, care models, and pacing of clinical management. Four unique papers were identified. Our most important finding was that quality data on chronic ICU management, particularly for children, is sparse. All papers in this review confirmed the unique needs of chronic patients, particularly related to respiratory management, which is a common driver of ICU length of stay. Taken together, the papers support the hypothesis that protocols to reduce interdisciplinary management variability and to allow for slower management pacing should be studied for their impact on patient and health system outcomes. Optimizing value in ICU care requires mapping of resources to patient needs, particularly for patients with the most intense resource utilization. For children with CCI, parents and clinicians report that rapid treatment changes undermine recovery and prolong ICU stays. This review highlights the lack of quality pediatric research in this area and supports further investigation of a “slow and steady” approach to ICU management for children with CCI.

Keywords

chronic critical illness - intensive care - multidisciplinary - protocol - pathway

This study was performed at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.




Publication History

Received: 03 February 2020

Accepted: 05 May 2020

Article published online:
17 June 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Shapiro MC, Henderson CM, Hutton N, Boss RD. Defining pediatric chronic critical illness for clinical care, research, and policy. Hosp Pediatr 2017; 7 (04) 236-244
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Simon TD, Berry J, Feudtner C. et al. Children with complex chronic conditions in inpatient hospital settings in the United States. Pediatrics 2010; 126 (04) 647-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Edwards JD, Lucas AR, Boscardin WJ, Dudley RA. Repeated critical illness and unplanned readmissions within 1 year to PICUs. Crit Care Med 2017; 45 (08) 1276-1284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Namachivayam P, Taylor A, Montague T. et al. Long-stay children in intensive care: long-term functional outcome and quality of life from a 20-yr institutional study. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2012; 13 (05) 520-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Naghib S, van der Starre C, Gischler SJ, Joosten KFM, Tibboel D. Mortality in very long-stay pediatric intensive care unit patients and incidence of withdrawal of treatment. Intensive Care Med 2010; 36 (01) 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Namachivayam SP, Alexander J, Slater A. et al; Paediatric Study Group and Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society. Five-year survival of children with chronic critical illness in Australia and New Zealand. Crit Care Med 2015; 43 (09) 1978-1985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 van der Heide P, Hassing MBF, Gemke RJBJ. Characteristics and outcome of long-stay patients in a paediatric intensive care unit: a case-control study. Acta Paediatr 1992 2004; 93 (08) 1070-1074
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Henderson CM, Williams EP, Shapiro MC. et al. “Stuck in the ICU”: caring for children with chronic critical illness. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2017; 18 (11) e561-e568
    Google Scholar
  • 9 MacIntyre NR, Cook DJ, Ely Jr EW. et al; American College of Chest Physicians, American Association for Respiratory Care, American College of Critical Care Medicine. Evidence-based guidelines for weaning and discontinuing ventilatory support: a collective task force facilitated by the American College of Chest Physicians; the American Association for Respiratory Care; and the American College of Critical Care Medicine. Chest 2001; 120 (Suppl. 06) 375S-395S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 MacIntyre NR, Epstein SK, Carson S, Scheinhorn D, Christopher K, Muldoon S. National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care. Management of patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation: report of a NAMDRC consensus conference. Chest 2005; 128 (06) 3937-3954
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kun SS, Edwards JD, Ward SLD, Keens TG. Hospital readmissions for newly discharged pediatric home mechanical ventilation patients. Pediatr Pulmonol 2012; 47 (04) 409-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ceriana P, Carlucci A, Navalesi P. et al. Weaning from tracheotomy in long-term mechanically ventilated patients: feasibility of a decisional flowchart and clinical outcome. Intensive Care Med 2003; 29 (05) 845-848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Burns SM, Marshall M, Burns JE. et al. Design, testing, and results of an outcomes-managed approach to patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Am J Crit Care 1998; 7 (01) 45-57 , quiz 58–59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Daly BJ, Rudy EB, Thompson KS, Happ MB. Development of a special care unit for chronically critically ill patients. Heart Lung 1991; 20 (01) 45-51
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt J, Oxman A. GRADE Handbook for Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations. Updated October 2013. The GRADE Working Group. Available at: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Marcin JP, Slonim AD, Pollack MM, Ruttimann UE. Long-stay patients in the pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2001; 29 (03) 652-657
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Borges LGA, Savi A, Teixeira C. et al. Mechanical ventilation weaning protocol improves medical adherence and results. J Crit Care 2017; 41: 296-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lee Y-LL, Sims KD, Butts CC. et al. The combination of SAT and SBT protocols may help reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the burn intensive care unit. J Burn Care Res 2017; 38 (02) e574-e579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ory J, Raybaud E, Chabanne R. et al. Comparative study of 2 oral care protocols in intensive care units. Am J Infect Control 2017; 45 (03) 245-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Seitz KP, Sevransky JE, Martin GS, Roback JD, Murphy DJ. Evaluation of RBC transfusion practice in adult ICUs and the effect of restrictive transfusion protocols on routine care. Crit Care Med 2017; 45 (02) 271-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pearson DJ, Sharma A, Lospinoso JA, Morris MJ, McCann ET. Effects of electrolyte replacement protocol implementation in a medical intensive care unit. J Intensive Care Med 2018; 33 (10) 574-581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Brilli RJ, McClead Jr RE, Crandall WV. et al. A comprehensive patient safety program can significantly reduce preventable harm, associated costs, and hospital mortality. J Pediatr 2013; 163 (06) 1638-1645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shaw DJ, Davidson JE, Smilde RI, Sondoozi T, Agan D. Multidisciplinary team training to enhance family communication in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2014; 42 (02) 265-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Collinsworth AW, Priest EL, Campbell CR, Vasilevskis EE, Masica AL. A review of multifaceted care approaches for the prevention and mitigation of delirium in intensive care units. J Intensive Care Med 2016; 31 (02) 127-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fanari Z, Barekatain A, Kerzner R, Hammami S, Weintraub WS, Maheshwari V. Impact of a multidisciplinary team approach including an intensivist on the outcomes of critically ill patients in the cardiac care unit. Mayo Clin Proc 2016; 91 (12) 1727-1734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Marra A, Ely EW, Pandharipande PP, Patel MB. The ABCDEF bundle in critical care. Crit Care Clin 2017; 33 (02) 225-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Boss RD, Williams EP, Henderson CM. et al. Pediatric chronic critical illness: reducing excess hospitalizations. Hosp Pediatr 2017; 7 (08) 460-470
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (07) e1000097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar