To determine the prevalence of frailty in Emergency Departments (EDs); examine the ability of frailty to predict poor outcomes post-discharge; and identify the most appropriate instrument for routine ED use. In this prospective study we simultaneously assessed adults 65+yrs admitted and/or spent one night in the ED using Fried, the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and SUHB (Stable, Unstable, Help to walk, Bedbound) scales in four Australian EDs for rapid recognition of frailty between June 2015 and March 2016. 899 adults with complete follow-up data (mean (SD) age 80.0 (8.3) years; female 51.4%) were screened for frailty. Although different scales yielded vastly different frailty prevalence (SUHB 9.7%, Fried 30.4%, CFS 43.7%), predictive discrimination of poor discharge outcomes (death, poor self-reported health/quality of life, need for community services post-discharge, or reattendance to ED after the index hospitalization) for all identical final models was equivalent across all scales (AUROC 0.735 for Fried, 0.730 for CFS and 0.720 for SUHB). This study confirms that screening for frailty in older ED patients can inform prognosis and target discharge planning including community services required. The CFS was as accurate as the Fried and SUHB in predicting poor outcomes, but more practical for use in busy clinical environments with lower level of disruption. Given the limitations of objectively measuring frailty parameters, self-report and clinical judgment can reliably substitute the assessment in EDs. We propose that in a busy ED environment, frailty scores could be used as a red flag for poor follow-up outcome.

Critical care medicine is a relatively young specialty that was developed in response to potentially reversible life-threatening illness and was facilitated by developments such as new drugs, support equipment, and monitoring technology. It has been largely practiced within the four walls of an intensive care unit (ICU). However, now there are increasing numbers of critically ill and at-risk patients in acute hospitals who are suffering potentially preventable, serious complications that may result in death because of a lack of appropriate systems, skills, and expertise outside of the ICU. Critical care specialists are expanding their roles beyond the four walls of their ICUs and becoming involved with strategies such as the medical emergency team, a concept designed to recognize critical illness early and to respond rapidly to resuscitate patients wherever they are in the hospital.

Meta-analyses show that hospital rapid response systems (RRS) are associated with reduced rates of cardiorespiratory arrest and mortality. However, many RRS fail to provide appropriate outcomes. Thus an improved understanding of how to succeed with a RRS is crucial. By understanding the barriers and facilitators within the limbs of a RRS, these can be addressed. To explore the barriers and facilitators within the limbs of a RRS as described by health-care professionals working within the system. The electronic databases searched were: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, Cochrane, PsychInfo and Web of Science. Search terms were related to RRS and their facilitators and barriers. Studies were appraised guided by the CASP tool. Twenty-one qualitative studies were identified and subjected to content analysis. Clear leadership, interprofessional trust and collaboration seems to be crucial for succeeding with a RRS. Clear protocols, feedback, continuous evaluation and interprofessional training were highlighted as facilitators. Reprimanding down the hierarchy, underestimating the importance of call-criteria, alarm fatigue and a lack of integration with other hospital systems were identified as barriers. To succeed with a RRS, the keys seem to lie in the administrative and quality improvement limbs. Clear leadership and continuous quality improvement provide the foundation for the continuing collaboration to manage deteriorating patients. Succeeding with a RRS is a never-ending process.

Health care-associated infections (HAI) have been shown to increase length of stay, the cost of care, and rates of hospital deaths (Kaye and Marchaim, J Am Geriatr Soc 62(2):306–11, 2014; Roberts and Scott, Med Care 48(11):1026–35, 2010; Warren and Quadir, Crit Care Med 34(8):2084–9, 2006; Zimlichman and Henderson, JAMA Intern Med 173(22):2039–46, 2013). Importantly, infections acquired during a hospital stay have been shown to be preventable (Loveday and Wilson, J Hosp Infect 86:S1–70, 2014). In particular, due to more invasive procedures, mechanical ventilation, and critical illness, patients cared for in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at greater risk of HAI and associated poor outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to summarise the effectiveness of chlorhexidine (CHG) bathing, in adult intensive care patients, to reduce infection. A systematic literature search was undertaken to identify trials assessing the effectiveness of CHG bathing to reduce risk of infection, among adult intensive care patients. Infections included were: bloodstream infections; central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI); catheter-associated urinary tract infections; ventilator-associated pneumonia; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA); vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus; and Clostridium difficile. Summary estimates were calculated as incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence/credible intervals. Variation in study designs was addressed using hierarchical Bayesian random-effects models. Seventeen trials were included in our final analysis: seven of the studies were cluster-randomised crossover trials, and the remaining studies were before-and-after trials. CHG bathing was estimated to reduce the risk of CLABSI by 56% (Bayesian random effects IRR = 0.44 (95% credible interval (CrI), 0.26, 0.75)), and MRSA colonisation and bacteraemia in the ICU by 41% and 36%, respectively (IRR = 0.59 (95% CrI, 0.36, 0.94); and IRR = 0.64 (95% CrI, 0.43, 0.91)). The numbers needed to treat for these specific ICU infections ranged from 360 (CLABSI) to 2780 (MRSA bacteraemia). This meta-analysis of the effectiveness of CHG bathing to reduce infections among adults in the ICU has found evidence for the benefit of daily bathing with CHG to reduce CLABSI and MRSA infections. However, the effectiveness may be dependent on the underlying baseline risk of these events among the given ICU population. Therefore, CHG bathing appears to be of the most clinical benefit when infection rates are high for a given ICU population.

Background: Clinical frailty among older adults admitted to intensive care has been proposed as an important determinant of patient outcomes. Among this group of patients, an acute episode of delirium is also common, but its relationship to frailty and increased risk of mortality has not been extensively explored. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the relationship between clinical frailty, delirium and hospital mortality of older adults admitted to intensive care. Methods: This study is part of a Delirium in Intensive Care (Deli) Study. During the initial 6-month baseline period, clinical frailty status on admission to intensive care, among adults aged 50 years or more; acute episodes of delirium; and the outcomes of intensive care and hospital stay were explored. Results: During the 6-month baseline period, 997 patients, aged 50 years or more, were included in this study. The average age was 71 years (IQR, 63–79); 55% were male (n = 537). Among these patients, 39.2% (95% CI 36.1–42.3%, n = 396) had a Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) of 5 or more, and 13.0% (n = 127) had at least one acute episode of delirium. Frail patients were at greater risk of an episode of delirium (17% versus 10%, adjusted rate ratio (_adjRR) = 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20–2.43, p = 0.003), had a longer hospital stay (2.6 days, 95% CI 1–7 days, p = 0.009) and had a higher risk of hospital mortality (19% versus 7%, _adjRR = 2.54, 95% CI 1.72–3.75, p < 0.001), when compared to non-frail patients. Patients who were frail and experienced an acute episode of delirium in the intensive care had a 35% rate of hospital mortality versus 10% among non-frail patients who also experienced delirium in the ICU. Conclusion: Frailty and delirium significantly increase the risk of hospital mortality. Therefore, it is important to identify patients who are frail and institute measures to reduce the risk of adverse events in the ICU such as delirium and, importantly, to discuss these issues in an open and empathetic way with the patient and their families.