Browsing by Author "Bagshaw, Sean M."

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Critical care ultrasound training: a survey exploring the “education gap” between potential and reality in Canada
    (2021-12-11) Slemko, Jocelyn M.; Daniels, Vijay J.; Bagshaw, Sean M.; Ma, Irene W. Y.; Brindley, Peter G.; Buchanan, Brian M.
    Abstract Background Critical care ultrasound (CCUS) is now a core competency for Canadian critical care medicine (CCM) physicians, but little is known about what education is delivered, how competence is assessed, and what challenges exist. We evaluated the Canadian CCUS education landscape and compared it against published recommendations. Methods A 23-item survey was developed and incorporated a literature review, national recommendations, and expert input. It was sent in the spring of 2019 to all 13 Canadian Adult CCM training programs via their respective program directors. Three months were allowed for data collection and descriptive statistics were compiled. Results Eleven of 13 (85%) programs responded, of which only 7/11 (64%) followed national recommendations. Curricula differed, as did how education was delivered: 8/11 (72%) used hands-on training; 7/11 (64%) used educational rounds; 5/11 (45%) used image interpretation sessions, and 5/11 (45%) used scan-based feedback. All 11 employed academic half-days, but only 7/11 (64%) used experience gained during clinical service. Only 2/11 (18%) delivered multiday courses, and 2/11 (18%) had mandatory ultrasound rotations. Most programs had only 1 or 2 local CCUS expert-champions, and only 4/11 (36%) assessed learner competency. Common barriers included educators receiving insufficient time and/or support. Conclusions Our national survey is the first in Canada to explore CCUS education in critical care. It suggests that while CCUS education is rapidly developing, gaps persist. These include variation in curriculum and delivery, insufficient access to experts, and support for educators.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Health Economic Evaluation of Antimicrobial Stewardship, Procalcitonin Testing, and Rapid Blood Culture Identification in Sepsis Care: A 90-Day Model-Based, Cost-Utility Analysis
    (2024-11-19) Sligl, Wendy I.; Yan, Charles; Round, Jeff; Wang, Xiaoming; Chen, Justin Z.; Boehm, Cheyanne; Fong, Karen; Crick, Katelynn; Clua, Míriam G.; Codan, Cassidy; Dingle, Tanis C.; Prosser, Connie; Chen, Guanmin; Tse-Chang, Alena; Garros, Daniel; Zygun, David; Opgenorth, Dawn; Conly, John M.; Doig, Christopher J.; Lau, Vincent I.; Bagshaw, Sean M.
    Abstract Objective We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a bundled intervention including an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP), procalcitonin (PCT) testing, and rapid blood culture identification (BCID), compared with pre-implementation standard care in critically ill adult patients with sepsis. Methods We conducted a decision tree model-based cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously published pre- and post-implementation quality improvement study. We adopted a public Canadian healthcare payer’s perspective. Two intensive care units in Alberta with 727 adult critically ill patients were included. Our bundled intervention was compared with pre-implementation standard care. We collected healthcare resource use and estimated unit costs in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD) over a time horizon from study entry to hospital discharge or death. We calculated the incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) of the intervention group compared with the pre-intervention group. The primary outcome was cost per sepsis case. Secondary outcomes included readmission rates, Clostridioides difficile infections, mortality, and lengths of stay. Uncertainty was investigated using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, cost-effectiveness plane scatterplots, and sensitivity analyses. Results Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cost per index hospital admission was CAD $83,251 ($107,926) for patients in the intervention group and CAD $87,044 ($104,406) for the pre-intervention group, though the difference ($3,793 [$7,897]) was not statistically significant. Costs were higher in the pre-intervention group for antibiotics, readmissions, and C. difficile infections. The intervention group had a lower mean expected cost; $110,580 ($108,917) compared with pre-intervention ($125,745 [$113,210]), with a difference of $15,165 ($8278). There were no statistically significant differences in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) between groups. The iNMB of the intervention group compared with pre-intervention was greater than $15,000 for willingness-to-pay (WTP) per QALY values of between $0 and $100,000. In our sensitivity analysis, the intervention was most likely to be cost-effective in roughly 56% of simulations at all WTP thresholds. Conclusions Our bundled intervention of ASP, PCT, and BCID among adult critically ill patients with sepsis was potentially cost-effective, but with substantial decision uncertainty.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Incidence and outcomes of critical illness in indigenous peoples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (2023-07-13) Bowker, Samantha L.; Williams, Kienan; Volk, Auriele; Auger, Leonard; Lafontaine, Alika; Dumont, Paige; Wingert, Aireen; Davis, Amanda; Bialy, Liza; Wright, Erica; Oster, Richard T.; Bagshaw, Sean M.
    Abstract Background Indigenous Peoples experience health inequities and racism across the continuum of health services. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence and outcomes of critical illness among Indigenous Peoples. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to October 2022). Observational studies, case series of > 100 patients, clinical trial arms, and grey literature reports of Indigenous adults were eligible. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and appraised research quality from an Indigenous perspective using the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Assessment Tool. ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were compared using risk ratios and mean difference (MD) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. ICU admission was synthesized descriptively. Results Fifteen studies (Australia and/or New Zealand [n = 12] and Canada [n = 3]) were included. Risk of bias was low in 10 studies and moderate in 5, and included studies had minimal incorporation of Indigenous perspectives or consultation. There was no difference in ICU mortality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous (RR 1.14, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.34, I2 = 87%). We observed a shorter ICU length of stay among Indigenous (MD − 0.25; 95%CI, − 0.49 to − 0.00; I2 = 95%) and a higher use for IMV among non-Indigenous (RR 1.10; 95%CI, 1.06 to 1.15; I2 = 81%). Conclusion Research on Indigenous Peoples experience with critical care is poorly characterized and has rarely included Indigenous perspectives. ICU mortality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations was similar, while there was a shorter ICU length of stay and less mechanical ventilation use among Indigenous patients. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO CRD42021254661; Registered: 12 June, 2021.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Incidence and outcomes of critical illness in Indigenous Peoples: a systematic review protocol
    (2022-04-13) Bowker, Samantha L.; Williams, Kienan; Wingert, Aireen; Boyd, Jamie M.; Potestio, Melissa L.; Gates, Michelle; Wright, Erica; Bagshaw, Sean M.
    Abstract Background Indigenous Peoples experience health inequities across the continuum of health services. Improvements for Indigenous patients and their families during vulnerable experiences with the healthcare system may have a significant impact on the patient experience and outcomes. Improved understanding of the occurrence of critical illness in Indigenous Peoples and their use of critical care services, as a strategic priority, may aid in the development of initiatives for improving health equity. A global focus was selected to learn from Indigenous populations’ experiences with critical care, as the understanding of critical illness among Indigenous Peoples in Canada is not well understood. This protocol outlines a systematic review focused on describing the incidence of critical illness and utilization of critical care services among Indigenous Peoples. Methods Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched. Relevant Canadian sites for gray literature (National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health, First Nations Health Authority, Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Indigenous Peoples’ Health, National Association of Friendship Centres, the Alberta First Nations Information Governance Centre, Métis Nation of Alberta) will also be searched. We will include studies of adults (≥18 years) either without critical illness (i.e., general population) or with critical illness (i.e., admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU)). The exposure of interest will be Indigenous identity. Primary outcome measures are ICU admission and ICU mortality. Because heterogeneity in populations, comparisons, and outcome measures is anticipated, it is likely that the findings will be summarized using a narrative synthesis. A meta-analysis will be performed if there is sufficient evidence on one or more outcomes of interest. Discussion This systematic review will provide a better understanding of the epidemiology, risk factors, and outcomes of critical illness and utilization of critical care services among Indigenous Peoples. The knowledge generated will be applied to a broader program of work designed to create ethical space to co-design, implement, and evaluate a culturally competent, safe, and innovative model for critical care services for Indigenous People. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42021254661
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    LIBERATE: a study protocol for midodrine for the early liberation from vasopressor support in the intensive care unit (LIBERATE): protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    (2022-03-04) Opgenorth, Dawn; Baig, Nadia; Fiest, Kirsten; Karvellas, Constantine; Kutsogiannis, Jim; Lau, Vincent; Macintyre, Erika; Senaratne, Janek; Slemko, Jocelyn; Sligl, Wendy; Wang, Xiaoming; Bagshaw, Sean M.; Rewa, Oleksa G.
    Abstract Background Intravenous (IV) vasopressors to support hemodynamics are a primary indication for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Utilization of oral vasopressor therapy may offer an alternative to IV vasopressor therapy in the ICU, thus decreasing the need for ICU admission. Oral vasopressors, such as midodrine, have been used for hemodynamic support in non-critically ill patients, but their evaluation in critically ill patients to potentially spare IV vasopressor therapy has been limited. Methods The LIBERATE study will be a multicenter, parallel-group, blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial. It will recruit adult (i.e., age ≥ 18 years) critically ill patients receiving stable or decreasing doses of IV vasopressors. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive either midodrine 10 mg administered enterally every 8 h or placebo until 24 h post-discontinuation of IV vasopressors. The primary outcome will be ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality at 90 days, hospital length of stay, length of IV vasopressor support, re-initiation of IV vasopressors, rates of ICU readmission, and occurrence of AEs. Health economic outcomes including ICU, hospital and healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated. Pre-planned subgroup analyses include age, sex, frailty, severity of illness, etiology of shock, and comorbid conditions. Discussion LIBERATE will rigorously evaluate the effect of oral midodrine on duration of ICU stay and IV vasopressor support in critically ill patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05058612 . Registered on September 28, 2021
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review
    (2021-09-25) Moss, Stephana J.; Krewulak, Karla D.; Stelfox, Henry T.; Ahmed, Sofia B.; Anglin, Melanie C.; Bagshaw, Sean M.; Burns, Karen E. A.; Cook, Deborah J.; Doig, Christopher J.; Fox-Robichaud, Alison; Fowler, Robert; Hernández, Laura; Kho, Michelle E.; Kredentser, Maia; Makuk, Kira; Murthy, Srinivas; Niven, Daniel J.; Olafson, Kendiss; Parhar, Ken K. S.; Patten, Scott B.; Rewa, Oleksa G.; Rochwerg, Bram; Sept, Bonnie; Soo, Andrea; Spence, Krista; Spence, Sean; Straus, Sharon; West, Andrew; Parsons Leigh, Jeanna; Fiest, Kirsten M.
    Abstract Background Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. Results Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). Conclusions Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Trial registration: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.