This study prospectively evaluates the recall of one hundred patients following admission to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at Groote Schuur Hospital. It was prompted by criticism (by members of staff and visitors to the ICU) of our practice of wardrounds, arterial blood gas sampling, and light sedation of patients. In addition, staff preconceptions about patients' reactions to the ICU needed evaluation. The patients analyzed included a wide spectrum of race, religion, occupation, and educational levels. The more common diagnoses included asthma (22%), pneumonia (14%), trauma (13%), and Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) (13%). The average APACHE II score (a scoring system widely used to evaluate severity of illness) was 12.27 and 68% of the patients were mechanically ventilated. Objective data collected while the patients were in the ICU included demographic information, diagnosis, APACHE II score, sedation, level of consciousness, and procedures. Within 48 hours of discharge from the ICU, patients were interviewed and asked to quantify their recall of procedures and events which had occurred while they were in the ICU. Data was entered into a microcomputer database for analysis and, where appropriate, statistical tests were performed. Seventy-one patients recalled being admitted to hospital but only 50 remembered being admitted to ICU. Eighty-four patients described the ICU atmosphere as friendly or relaxed. Seventy-three patients felt that they had sufficient sleep while in the ICU. The most frequently reported unpleasant experiences were arterial blood gas sampling (48 patients), tracheal suctioning (30 of 68 ventilated patients), pain (22 patients), and noise (20 patients). Only 6 patients disliked wardrounds and discussion around the bedside. Conclusions include the suggestions that arterial catheters or pulse oximetry should be used when frequent arterial blood gas analyses are needed, and that tracheal suctioning should be performed with more care.

No description available.

Contexte: L’utilisation efficiente des ressources en soins intensifs représente un défi potentiellement surmontable dans un contexte de régionalisation des services. Conséquemment, il importe de convenir de critères homogènes et transparents permettant de trier et de transporter les patients là où ils peuvent recevoir les soins nécessaires à leur condition. Objectif: L’objectif principal de cette étude est d’identifier et d’évaluer les publications définissant les critères utilisés pour prioriser ou refuser une admission aux soins intensifs. Méthodes: Nous avons entrepris une revue systématique en accord avec les lignes directrices PRISMA. Nous avons identifié tous les articles pertinents publiés jusqu’au 8 novembre 2016 au moyen des bases de données PubMed, Embase, Medline, EBM Reviews, CINAHL Complete, les bases de données recensant la littérature grise ainsi qu’en effectuant une revue manuelle d’articles supplémentaires. Nous avons ensuite évalué la qualité des articles retenus selon une échelle d’appréciation que nous avons développée. Finalement, nous avons extrait puis évalué chaque critère individuel en plus de les regrouper par thème. Résultats: L’étude nous a permis d’identifier 5818 abrégés. Nous avons révisé 416 articles exhaustivement pour en retenir 129 qui correspondent aux critères d’inclusion. Il s’agit d’articles de recherche originale (34%), de lignes directrices (26 %) ou de revues de la littérature (21 %). Nous avons extrait 200 critères de triage et de transport au sein des 129 articles. Ceux-ci proviennent surtout des États-Unis (43 %) et privilégient un mécanisme d’exclusion (71 %) plutôt que de priorisation (17 %) des clientèles. Peu d’articles abordent les critères de transport (4 %). Nous avons classifié les critères selon qu’ils soient reliés à l’un ou l’autre des quatre thèmes qui ont émergé de notre analyse : au patient; à la condition clinique; au médecin qui évalue le cas; ou au contexte. Le critère le plus fréquemment cité est celui de la préférence du patient suivi de l’évaluation du médecin. Conclusion: Une revue systématique a permis de générer une liste de 200 critères utilisés pour prioriser ou exclure certains types de patients dans un état critique. Malgré les limites de notre étude, celle-ci peut permettre aux cliniciens et aux preneurs de décision de concevoir des politiques de triage et d’admission au niveau local, régional ou national. De plus, l’étude identifie des champs de recherche potentiels où le développement de critères spécifiques et mesurables pourrait contribuer au développement de lignes directrices diminuant la variabilité dans les pratiques et améliorant le processus d’admission aux soins intensifs. / Context: Intensive care bed unavailability negatively affects patients' outcomes. Strategies that reduce inefficient use of resources and reduce unavailability may increase quality and accessibility of critical care. As advocacy for regionalization of critical care resources increases, there is a need for agreed triage and transport criteria. However, outside of the trauma population, such agreed criteria and recommendations are lacking. Objective: We aimed to identify and appraise articles defining criteria used to prioritize or withhold a critical care admission. Methods: We undertook a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. Relevant articles were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, Medline, EBM Reviews, CINAHL Complete from inception until November 8th, 2016. We also undertook searches through gray literature as well as a manual review of references. We then assessed the quality of identified articles through an appraisal scale we developed. Finally, we extracted and evaluated all criteria within the articles and grouped them by theme. Results: A total of 5818 abstracts were identified. After screening, we reviewed 416 articles in full and 129 articles met study criteria. These articles were mainly original research (34%), guidelines (26%) and reviews (21%). Amongst them, we identified 200 unique triage and transport criteria. Most articles were published in the United States (43%) and highlighted exclusion criteria (71%) rather than a prioritization mechanism (17%). Very few articles pertained to transport of critically ill patients (4%). We classified criteria as they related to one of four emerging themes: patient, condition, physician and context. The most commonly found triage criteria was patient preference followed by physician’s assessment that the patient was too well to benefit from ICU admission. Conclusion: A systematic review aimed at identifying triage and transport criteria used to prioritize or exclude certain patient populations under different settings helped to generate a list of 200 criteria classified within 4 themes. Despite its limitations, this study may help clinicians and decision makers devise local, regional or national ICU triage criteria. It also identifies gaps in knowledge where future clinical research yielding specific and measurable criteria tailored to clearly defined patient populations may help to decrease ICU triage variability.