The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) has developed evidence-based recommendations and expert opinions about end-of-life (EoL) and palliative care for critically ill adults to optimize patient-centered care, improving outcomes of relatives, and supporting intensive care unit (ICU) staff in delivering compassionate and effective EoL and palliative care. An international multi-disciplinary panel of clinical experts, a methodologist, and representatives of patients and families examined key domains, including variability across countries, decision-making, palliative-care integration, communication, family-centered care, and conflict management. Eight evidence-based recommendations (6 of low level of evidence and 2 of high level of evidence) and 19 expert opinions were presented. EoL legislation and the importance of respecting the autonomy and preferences of patients were given close attention. Differences in EoL care depending on country income and healthcare provision were considered. Structured EoL decision-making strategies are recommended to improve outcomes of patients and relatives, as well as staff satisfaction and mental health. Early integration of palliative care and the use of standardized tools for symptom assessment are suggested for patients at high risk of dying. Communication training for ICU staff and printed communication aids for families are advocated to improve outcomes and satisfaction. Methods for enhancing family-centeredness of care include structured family conferences and culturally sensitive interventions. Conflict-management protocols and strategies to prevent burnout among healthcare professionals are also considered. The work done to develop these guidelines highlights many areas requiring further research.

• MeSH
• Intensive Care Units * organization & administration   standards   MeSH
• Communication MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Palliative Care * standards   methods   MeSH
• Critical Care methods   standards   MeSH
• Terminal Care * standards   methods   MeSH
• Decision Making MeSH
• Societies, Medical MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Practice Guideline MeSH
• Geographicals
• Europe MeSH

PURPOSE: During the initial phase of the pandemic, healthcare professionals faced difficulties due to the limited availability of comprehensive learning resources on managing patients affected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The COVID-19 Skills Preparation Course (C19_SPACE) was tailored to meet the overwhelming demand for specialized training. The primary objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and impact of this program on enhancing clinical knowledge and to identify factors affecting this improvement. METHODS: As part of the project, data were collected prospectively to measure the baseline knowledge. After the descriptive statistics, multiple and multivariate logistic regression models were executed to identify the factors associated with knowledge increase. RESULTS: The final sample included 3140 medical doctors (MDs) and 3090 nurses (RNs). For the primary analysis, the mean value of the baseline knowledge test score of MDs was 62.41 (standard deviation, SD = 13.48), and it significantly (p < 0.001) increased to 84.65 (SD = 11.95). Factors influencing overall knowledge scores were female sex (AOR = 1.34 [1.04-1.73]), being a specialist qualified for intensive care medicine (adjusted odds ratio, AOR = 0.56, [0.33-0.96]), and performance on the pre-test (AOR = 0.91, [0.90-0.92]). As for the RNs, the mean value of the total knowledge score was 63.25 (SD = 13.53), which significantly (p < 0.001) increased to 81.51 (SD = 14.21). Factor associated with knowledge was performance on the pre-test (AOR = 0.92 [0.92-0.93]). CONCLUSIONS: C19_SPACE effectively increased the clinical knowledge of doctors and nurses. The effect was more pronounced in the program's target group of healthcare workers with less experience in the intensive care unit (ICU). Other factors associated with knowledge enhancement were sex and being a specialist in intensive care.

• MeSH
• COVID-19 * epidemiology   MeSH
• Education, Distance methods   MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Clinical Competence * standards   statistics & numerical data   MeSH
• Physicians MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Pandemics MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• SARS-CoV-2 MeSH
• Nurses statistics & numerical data   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Adult MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. METHODS: This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. RESULTS: Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI - 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI - 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021).

• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

• Publication type
• Published Erratum MeSH

PURPOSE: To accommodate the unprecedented number of critically ill patients with pneumonia caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) expansion of the capacity of intensive care unit (ICU) to clinical areas not previously used for critical care was necessary. We describe the global burden of COVID-19 admissions and the clinical and organizational characteristics associated with outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Multicenter, international, point prevalence study, including adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. RESULTS: 4994 patients from 280 ICUs in 46 countries were included. Included ICUs increased their total capacity from 4931 to 7630 beds, deploying personnel from other areas. Overall, 1986 (39.8%) patients were admitted to surge capacity beds. Invasive ventilation at admission was present in 2325 (46.5%) patients and was required during ICU stay in 85.8% of patients. 60-day mortality was 33.9% (IQR across units: 20%-50%) and ICU mortality 32.7%. Older age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury (AKI) were associated with increased mortality. These associations were also confirmed specifically in mechanically ventilated patients. Admission to surge capacity beds was not associated with mortality, even after controlling for other factors. CONCLUSIONS: ICUs responded to the increase in COVID-19 patients by increasing bed availability and staff, admitting up to 40% of patients in surge capacity beds. Although mortality in this population was high, admission to a surge capacity bed was not associated with increased mortality. Older age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and AKI were identified as the strongest predictors of mortality.

• MeSH
• Acute Kidney Injury * MeSH
• COVID-19 * MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Intensive Care Units MeSH
• Critical Illness MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• SARS-CoV-2 MeSH
• Respiration, Artificial MeSH
• Check Tag
• Adult MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Multicenter Study MeSH

PURPOSE: The intensity of procedural pain in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is well documented. However, little is known about procedural pain distress, the psychological response to pain. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter, multinational study of procedural pain. Pain distress was measured before and during procedures (0-10 numeric rating scale). Factors that influenced procedural pain distress were identified by multivariable analyses using a hierarchical model with ICU and country as random effects. RESULTS: A total of 4812 procedures were recorded (3851 patients, 192 ICUs, 28 countries). Pain distress scores were highest for endotracheal suctioning (ETS) and tracheal suctioning, chest tube removal (CTR), and wound drain removal (median [IQRs] = 4 [1.6, 1.7]). Significant relative risks (RR) for a higher degree of pain distress included certain procedures: turning (RR = 1.18), ETS (RR = 1.45), tracheal suctioning (RR = 1.38), CTR (RR = 1.39), wound drain removal (RR = 1.56), and arterial line insertion (RR = 1.41); certain pain behaviors (RR = 1.19-1.28); pre-procedural pain intensity (RR = 1.15); and use of opioids (RR = 1.15-1.22). Patient-related variables that significantly increased the odds of patients having higher procedural pain distress than pain intensity were pre-procedural pain intensity (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05); pre-hospital anxiety (OR = 1.76); receiving pethidine/meperidine (OR = 4.11); or receiving haloperidol (OR = 1.77) prior to the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Procedural pain has both sensory and emotional dimensions. We found that, although procedural pain intensity (the sensory dimension) and distress (the emotional dimension) may closely covary, there are certain factors than can preferentially influence each of the dimensions. Clinicians are encouraged to appreciate the multidimensionality of pain when they perform procedures and use this knowledge to minimize the patient's pain experience.

• MeSH
• Surgical Procedures, Operative adverse effects   MeSH
• Emotions * MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Pain Measurement MeSH
• Critical Care statistics & numerical data   MeSH
• Pain, Procedural psychology   MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
• Stress, Psychological etiology   MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Check Tag
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Multicenter Study MeSH